Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05187/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05187-0/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

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

GILBERTO RUELAS, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05187-CDC-TLB

 

JOHN DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITY DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Gilberto Ruelas, Jr. (“Ruelas”), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He proceeds pro se. To date, Ruelas has not submitted an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) or paid the $405 filing fee.

The case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. However, because 

not all parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and this document 

will be dispositive of Ruelas’ claims, this document will be filed as a Report and Recommendation 

and the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge Timothy L. Brooks. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and General Order 2024-02. 

The case is before the Court on the Ruelas’ failure to obey an Order of the Court.

I. DISCUSSION

When he filed this case, Ruelas was incarcerated in the Benton County Detention Center 

(“BCDC”). Ruelas was specifically advised that he was required to immediately inform the Court 

of any change of address. (ECF No. 2). Ruelas was told to submit a change of address in a 

separate document entitled “Notice to the Court of Address Change.” Id. Ruelas was also 

directed to submit an Amended Complaint and a complete IFP application or pay the $405 filing 

fee by September 25, 2024. Id.

Case 5:24-cv-05187-TLB Document 7 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

On September 25, 2024, mail was returned as undeliverable with a notation that Ruelas 

was no longer in the BCDC. (ECF No. 4). On October 2, 2024, Ruelas, contrary to the Court’s 

explicit instructions, sent an e-mail to the undersigned providing his new address. The Clerk was 

directed to change his address. On October 3, 2024, Court staff notified Ruelas that he was not 

allowed to communicate with the undersigned by e-mail. Ruelas was additionally advised that he 

had a complete IFP application and Amended Complaint that had been due to the Court on 

September 25, 2024. On October 4, 2024, due to his change of address, Ruelas’ deadline to 

submit the requested documents was extended to October 25, 2024. (ECF No. 5). Ruelas did 

not submit the documents. 

As a matter of procedural fairness and to give Ruelas another opportunity to comply with 

the Court’s Orders, a Show Cause Order was entered on October 28, 2024. (ECF No. 6). Ruelas 

was advised that he had failed to submit his IFP application and Amended Complaint by the 

Court’s deadline. Id. He was given until November 18, 2024, to show cause for this failure. Id.

To date, Ruelas has not communicated with the Court. He has not filed his IFP application 

or his Amended Complaint. No mail has been returned as undeliverable.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the 

ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line 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). 

Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas 

requires parties appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action 

Case 5:24-cv-05187-TLB Document 7 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

diligently. Plaintiff has wholly failed to prosecute this case.

II. CONCLUSION

For this reason, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.5(c)(2) 

of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.

The parties have fourteen 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. 

Status of Referral: The referral terminated upon the filing of this Report and 

Recommendation.

RECOMMENDED this 25th day of November 2024.

s/ Christy Comstock

CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05187-TLB Document 7 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>