Opinion
2:23-CV-00183-JM-JTK
02-02-2024
KEVIN DONNERSON PLAINTIFF v. CRITTENDON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Kevin Donnerson (“Plaintiff”) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action while he was incarcerated at the Crittenden County Detention Center, and the Court granted his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on August 29, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3).
Plaintiff has been released from incarceration. (Doc. No. 10). On November 9, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an updated Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days because it is unclear whether Plaintiff is still entitled to proceed in forma pauperis now that he is no longer in custody. (Doc. No. 12).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's November 9, 2023 Order. (Id.).
Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas provides as follows:
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....
Because Plaintiff has failed to respond, his Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. No. 18) is denied as moot. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED