IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

EVERICK L. MONK PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01032

COLUMBIA COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; FNU LOWE, Sheriff; SGT. SONYA COLLIER, Jail Administrator; FNU WOODS; FNU YOUNG, Nurse; FNU ALEXANDER, Doctor; and WILL JAMES DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff Everick L. Monk initiated this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court. This matter was originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas. (ECF No. 1). On April 25, 2023, the matter was transferred to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (ECF No. 7). On April 27, 2023, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Barry Bryant ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint on the court-approved form for this district, and, in a separate order, also directed him to file an in forma pauperis (IFP) application on the court-approved form for this district or pay the full filing fee of $402 by May 18, 2023. (ECF Nos. 10 & 11). In those orders, Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would subject his action to dismissal. Id. Although those orders were not returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff’s mail containing the case transfer information was returned as undeliverable and marked “Returned to Sender. Parole.” (ECF No. 12). When the May 18, 2023 deadline passed without any response or communication from Plaintiff, Judge Bryant ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 13). The deadline to respond to the Court’s show cause order was June 9, 2023. Id. The show cause order was returned as undeliverable and marked “RTS-Paroled.” (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the Court’s show cause order has now passed, and Plaintiff has

failed to respond or communicate with this Court in any way. 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). 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). 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). Plaintiff has failed to obey multiple Court orders, and he has failed to comply with the Local Rules requiring him to update the Court with his change of address within 30 days of any such change. 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 Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of June 2023. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge