Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_19-cv-04150/USCOURTS-arwd-4_19-cv-04150-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER E. HUTCHESON PLAINTIFF 

v. Civil No. 4:19-cv-4150

NEVADA COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANT

 

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher E. Hutcheson’s failure to obey a Court 

order and failure to prosecute this case. Plaintiff filed his Complaint and Application to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on November 21, 2019 in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF Nos. 

1, 2). The case was transferred to this Court on November 25, 2019. (ECF No. 3). 

On November 27, 2019, the Court entered an order noting that Plaintiff’s IFP application

was incomplete. (ECF No. 6). The Court directed Plaintiff to either complete the IFP application 

or pay the filing fee by December 18, 2019. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff was advised that if he failed 

“to return the completed IFP application or pay the $400 by December 18, 2019, the complaint 

shall be subject to summary dismissal for failure to obey an order of the Court.” Id. The November 

27, 2019 order also directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by December 18, 2019. (ECF 

No. 6). The order again advised Plaintiff that if he failed to so, this case would be subject to 

dismissal. Id. The Court’s November 27, 2019 order was not returned as undeliverable. As of 

the date of this order, Plaintiff has not submitted a completed IFP application, paid the filing fee, 

or filed an amended complaint.

Case 4:19-cv-04150-SOH Document 7 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
2

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). The Local Rules state 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 that 

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 was ordered to either submit a completed IFP application or pay the full filing fee. 

He was also ordered to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has failed to comply with these 

directives. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to obey an order of the Court and has failed to 

prosecute this matter. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2),

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of January, 2020.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey 

Susan O. Hickey

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04150-SOH Document 7 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>