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

TIMOTHY DAVID WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 1:24-cv-1006

SHENA CLARY, Jail Admin, Calhoun County Jail; and VERNNON MORRIS, Sheriff, Calhoun County Jail DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy David Williams’ failure to comply with the orders of the Court. On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff, a prisoner, initiated this pro se civil rights action in the Eastern District of Arkansas. ECF No. 2. On January 30, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin of the Eastern District of Arkansas ordered that this matter be transferred to this District in the interests of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). ECF No. 4. Upon transfer, this Court ordered Plaintiff to either submit a complete in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, which must include a signed certificate of inmate and assets form pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), or pay the entire filing fee of $405 by February 27, 2024. ECF No. 8. On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a complete IFP application, including the signed certified of inmate accounts and assets form as required by law. ECF No. 9. On February 22, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP. ECF No. 10. In accordance with the Local Rules, that Order also explained to Plaintiff that failure to notify the court of any change of address within 30 days of any such change would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. Id. On February 23, 2024, the Court ordered that the Defendants be served with the Complaint. ECF No. 12. On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s mail—including his copy of the Court’s order requiring him to submit a complete IFP application or pay the full filing fee, (ECF No. 8)—was returned as undeliverable from the Union County Detention Center (“UCDC”). ECF No. 14. The Court re-sent this mail to the Calhoun County Detention Center (“CCDC”). Id. On March 4, 2024,

Plaintiff’s mail to the CCDC—including a copy of the Court’s summons (ECF No. 12), and the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 10)—was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 15. No forwarding address was provided. More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his updated contact information. On March 26, 2024, Defendants filed their Answer. ECF No. 16. 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). Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court has discretion to dismiss an action for “failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App’x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Here, Plaintiff’s mail has been returned as undeliverable. More than 30 days have elapsed since the Court received Plaintiff’s returned mail, and Plaintiff has failed to update the Court with his current contact information. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to prosecute this action, and this case is subject to dismissal. Thus, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of April, 2024.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge