Opinion
4:22-cv-01201-PSH
07-27-2023
ADAM HILL ADC #601559 PLAINTIFF v. MAURICE CULCLAGER DEFENDANT
ORDER
Plaintiff Adam Hill filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 30, 2022 (Doc. No. 2), and was subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. No. 3). Hill filed an amended complaint on February 8, 2023 (Doc. No. 10), and service of process was ordered with respect to defendant Maurice Culclager (see Doc. No. 12).
On June 12, 2023, Hill filed a change of address notice indicating that he was released from custody (Doc. No. 29). The Court entered a text order the same day, directing Hill to submit the $350 filing fee or file a fully completed and signed IFP application reflecting his free-world financial status within 30 days (Doc. No. 30). He was cautioned that failure to comply with the Court's order within that time would result in the recommended dismissal of his case, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
More than 30 days have passed, and Hill has not complied or otherwise responded to the June 12 order. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court's orders. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
IT IS SO ORDERED.