Guirlando v. Sheriff David Norwood ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION MARCO GUIRLANDO PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 1:21-cv-1015 OUACHITA COUNTY; CITY TELE COIN; SHERIFF DAVID NORWOOD; CAPTIAN CAMERON OWENS; NURSE JANE DOE; GUARD ELLIS; and C/O JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court. Plaintiff Marco Guirlando originally filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se in the Western District of Louisiana, on March 25, 2021. ECF No. 1. The case was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas on March 31, 2021. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was granted Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on May 13, 2021. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on June 10, 2021. ECF No. 22. On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff was directed to respond to Defendant City Tele Coin’s Motion for Summary Judgment by August 2, 2022. ECF No. 64. In that Order, Plaintiff was advised that this case would be subject to dismissal if he failed to respond by the deadline. Id. On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff was directed to respond to the Ouachita County Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by August 8, 2022. ECF No. 68. In this Order, Plaintiff was advised that this case would be subject to dismissal if he failed to respond by the deadline. Id. On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 72. Plaintiff’s new deadline to respond was set for September 9, 2022. Id. On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff was granted a second extension of time to respond to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 75. Plaintiff’s newest deadline to respond was set for October 21, 2022. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response by October 21, 2022. On October 26, 2022, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why he failed to file his response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 76. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Show Cause Order or Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. No Orders sent to Plaintiff’s address of record have been returned as undeliverable. Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court has the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order.” Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). Also, the Local Rules state in pertinent part: It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently . . . If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter and has failed to obey the orders of the Court. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of December, 2022. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge