Opinion
4:24-cv-00870-LPR-JTK
11-22-2024
EMONIE DRASHAWN RATTLER ADC #181884 PLAINTIFF v. ROOSEVELT G. BARDEN, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Emonie Drashawn Rattler has not responded to the Court's October 11, 2024 Order directing him to either pay the $405 statutory filing fee or file a completed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 30 days. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to do one or the other could result in the dismissal of his Complaint without prejudice. Despite this warning, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, filed a completed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, or otherwise responded to the Court's October 11 Order and the time for doing so has expired.
Order (Doc. 4). The Order was entered by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney.
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, in relevant 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....Because Plaintiff has failed to respond, his Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal of this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED