Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_06-cv-00215/USCOURTS-ared-3_06-cv-00215-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

MELVIN BROWN PLAINTIFF

v. NO. 3:06CV00215-WRW

CARL ANDREW SKAGGS, 

Officer with the West Memphis

Police Department, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending are Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 22), Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27),

and Motion to Extend Time (Doc. No. 29). 

Plaintiff filed his Pro Se Complaint (Doc. No.1) on November 27, 2006. A Final Scheduling

Order (Doc. No 20) was entered on May 14, 2007. The Order was returned undeliverable. (Doc. No.

21). On July 24, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel and Motion for Extension of Time to

Complete Discovery. In the Motion, Defendants explained that they had propounded Interrogatories

and Requests for Production, but they had been unable to locate Plaintiff at the address provided to

the Clerk of the Court. By Order (Doc. No. 25), the extension was granted and Plaintiff was

reminded of his duties to follow the local rules of the Eastern District of Arkansas and directed to

notify the Clerk of the Court and opposing counsel of any address changes. 

The Uniform United States District Court Rules for Arkansas, Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), states

that “[i]t 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,” and “[i]f 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.” Local rules have the force of law, and parties are charged with

Case 3:06-cv-00215-BRW Document 30 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 2
1

Jetton v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 121 F.3d 423, 426 (8th Cir. 1997).

2

See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent

power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is

reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Page 2 of 2

knowledge of them.1

 Defendants have mailed a Notice of Deposition and copies of the pending

motions to Plaintiff certified mail, but everything has been returned undeliverable. Because Plaintiff

has failed to keep the Court apprised of his whereabouts, dismissal without prejudice is warranted.2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2007.

/s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr._____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00215-BRW Document 30 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 2