Opinion
6:22-cv-6116
07-18-2023
KEVIN O'NEAL MEREDITH PLAINTIFF v. DEPUTY SHERIFF JULIE GURUN and DEPUTY SHERIFF BRYAN CHANEY DEFENDANTS
AMENDED ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed June 5, 2023, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff Kevin O'Neal Meredith has timely filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 17. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on November 3, 2022. ECF No. 1. On November 16, 2022, the case was transferred to this District. ECF No. 3. On the day of the transfer, Plaintiff was directed to submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application and to submit an Amended Complaint by December 7, 2022. ECF Nos. 5 and 6. Plaintiff did not submit the requested documents by the deadline. Judge Bryant issued a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to respond by January 9, 2023. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff did not respond, but he filed a Notice of Address Change on February 2, 2023. ECF 10.
On February 27, 2023, Judge Bryant issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended dismissal of this case. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint and a Motion to Proceed IFP. ECF Nos. 12 and 13. Judge Bryant subsequently withdrew the initial Report and Recommendation while noting that there were still several deficiencies within Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and IFP application. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff was directed to provide a corrected Amended Complaint and IFP Application by May 18, 2023. Id. Plaintiff did not submit the requested documents prior to that deadline.
On June 5, 2023, Judge Bryant issued the instant Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 16. Judge Bryant finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with four orders of the Court and has failed to prosecute this matter. Id. at p. 3. Therefore, Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Id. On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff claims that he did not receive his mail from the administration of his unit, resulting in his failure to comply with prior orders. Plaintiff asserts that he now has the capacity to adequately respond to the Court's orders and prosecute this matter.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has lodged an objection sufficient to permit the Court to decline to adopt Judge Bryant's Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff has previously made efforts to comply with Court orders and prosecute this case. Therefore, the Court will presume for now that Plaintiff has not willingly disregarded Judge Bryant's orders. The Court will accept Plaintiff's assertion that he has had difficulty receiving his mail and will permit this case to continue. See Anderson v. Bristol, Inc., 936 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1046 n.2 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 25, 2013) (“[T]he Court grants leniency to pro se litigants.”); Greywind v. Podrebarac, 731 F.Supp.2d 931, 934 (D.N.D. Aug. 18, 2010) (“Courts sometimes give leniency to pro se litigants with regard to procedural rules.”).
However, the Court stresses that this ruling does not foreclose the possibility that this case could be dismissed at a later time if Plaintiff does not comply with future Court orders. Although the Court generally gives leniency to pro se litigants, they are not excused entirely from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) (“Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). Plaintiff cannot continually rely on the Court's leniency to excuse future failures to obey Court orders.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the instant Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16). This matter is referred back to Judge Bryant. Plaintiff must submit an Amended Complaint and a Completed IFP Application consistent with the instructions previously provided by Judge Bryant within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a court-approved § 1983 complaint form and a blank Prisoner IFP Application.
IT IS SO ORDERED.