Opinion
CIVIL 4:21-cv-04077
06-24-2022
TRALYNN DESHUN JONES PLAINTIFF v. WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER, Miller County Detention Center “MCDC”; SHERIFF JACKIE RUNION; OFFICER YEALY, MCDC; and OFFICER PAXTON, MCDC DEFENDANTS
ORDER
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On May 23, 2022, the parties consented to have the undersigned conduct all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. (ECF No. 18). Before the Court is Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court informed of his address.
Plaintiff Tralynn Deshun Jones filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on October 27, 2021. (ECF No. 1). His application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted that same day. (ECF No. 3). This order informed Plaintiff of his obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address. In response to this Court's order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 1, 2021. (ECF No. 9). On May 24, 2022, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned to the Court as undeliverable marked “NOT HERE RETURN TO SENDER”. (ECF No. 19).
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). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states 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 keep the Court informed of his address and failed to prosecute this case. 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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.