Montoya v. Independence Cnty. Jail

Full title: NATHAN RAY MONTOYA PLAINTIFF v. INDEPENDENCE COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANT

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 12, 2011

1:11CV00080 SWW/JTR (E.D. Ark. Dec. 12, 2011)

Opinion

1:11CV00080 SWW/JTR

12-12-2011

NATHAN RAY MONTOYA PLAINTIFF v. INDEPENDENCE COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANT

Susan Webber Wright

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Nathan Ray Montoya, has commenced this pro se § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was confined in the Independence County Jail. See docket entry #2.

On October 25, 2011, the Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff thirty days to file: (1) a freeworld Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; and (2) an Amended Complaint containing information necessary to complete the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See docket entry #8. Importantly, the Court advised Plaintiff that the failure to timely and properly do so would result in the dismissal of his case, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).¹ Id.

1 Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that: "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. A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and telephone number. 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." (Emphasis added.)

As of the date of this Order of Dismissal, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the October 25, 2011 Order, and the time for doing so has expired.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, due to Plaintiff's failure to timely and properly comply with the October 25, 2011 Order.

2. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order of Dismissal and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.

Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE