Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_23-cv-02128/USCOURTS-arwd-2_23-cv-02128-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

JOSHUA WILKERSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:23-cv-02128-SOH-MEF

SHERIFF HOBERT RUNION, et. al. DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, 

referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court Orders and failure to prosecute this 

case. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 26, 2023. (ECF No. 1). In the Order granting him 

in forma pauperis status, Plaintiff was advised that he must immediately inform the Court of any 

address change, or his case would be subject to dismissal. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff submitted an 

Amended Complaint on December 12, 2023. (ECF No. 13). 

On April 12, 2024, Defendants submitted a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Local Rule 

5.5(c)(2). (ECF No. 24). As grounds, they state that mail sent to Plaintiff in the Arkansas Division 

of Correction (“ADC”) has been returned, indicating that he is no longer an inmate housed in the 

ADC Varner Unit. (Id. at 1). Attached to the Motion is the returned envelope sent to Plaintiff, 

marked “Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 24-1). On April 15, 2024, the Court entered an Order 

directing Plaintiff to communicate with the Court by May 6, 2024. (ECF No. 26). This Order was 

Case 2:23-cv-02128-SOH Document 29 Filed 06/03/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

mailed to the ADC Varner Unit, and it was returned as undeliverable on May 1, 2024. (ECF No. 

27). 

To date, Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his new address, has failed to 

communicate with the Court, and has failed to prosecute this case. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local 

Rule 5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with Court Orders. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute 

this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 

Case 2:23-cv-02128-SOH Document 29 Filed 06/03/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

5.5(c)(2), Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with 

the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court.

DATED this 3rd day of June 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02128-SOH Document 29 Filed 06/03/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>