Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04108/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04108-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

LOGAN BRAINERD PLAINTIFF 

v. Civil No. 4:24-cv-04108 

SHERIFF CHAD WARD, et al DEFENDANT

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. 

Hickory, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose 

of making a Report and Recommendation. Before the Court is a Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

orders of the Court. 

A. Instant Complaint

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 16, 2024. ECF No. 1. Also on October 16, 2024, 

Plaintiff was notified he must pay the filing fee of $405.00 or file a Motion to proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”), within two business days. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was informed that failure to 

pay the filing fee or to file a Motion to proceed IFP may result in dismissal of this action. Id. 

Plaintiff has neither paid the $405.00 filing fee nor has he filed a Motion to proceed IFP. 

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). 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 the 

district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), 

Case 4:24-cv-04108-SOH Document 5 Filed 11/14/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

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). 

B. Other Cases 

Plaintiff has now filed three prior cases in this Court which seem to involve the same 

allegations as those in the instant Complaint. In Brainerd v. Sheriff Chad Ward, et al, No. 4:23-

cv-4066 and Brainerd v. Sheriff Chad Ward, et al, No. 4:23-cv-4067, Plaintiff names all of 

defendants named in the instant case as well as several others. While the complaints are not 

models of clarity, they all seem to be based on the same set of operative facts. These two prior 

complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff 

appealed both cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit which summarily 

affirmed the dismissal of both cases. See, Brainerd v. Ward, 2024 WL 3491251 (8th Cir. February 

15, 2024)(not reported) and Brainerd v. Ward, 2024 WL 3530145 (8th Cir. February 15, 2024)(not 

reported).

On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed Brainerd v. Sheriff Chad Ward, et al, No. 4:24-cv-4081. 

This was the third Complaint involving the same allegations as are alleged in this current matter. 

On November 13, 2024, this Court recommended that matter be dismissed based Plaintiff’s 

continued disregard of this Court’s Orders and his continued effort to pursue claims that have been 

previously dismissed. 

Now Plaintiff has now filed thisfourth complaint, which is an identical copy of the previous 

complaint filed in Brainerd v. Sheriff Chad Ward, et al, No. 4:24-cv-4081. ECF No. 1. This 

Complaint alleges the same conduct against the same defendants as in the previous complaints. In 

this matter, Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the Orders of this Court by failing to either 

pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a Motion to proceed IFP.

Case 4:24-cv-04108-SOH Document 5 Filed 11/14/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order, and therefore, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), I recommend Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

The Court further recommends, because of the Plaintiff’s continued disregard of this 

Court’s Orders and his continued effort to pursue claims that have been previously dismissed, that 

Plaintiff be barred from filing any further case in this District without submitting the required filing 

fee at the time of the submission of the proposed complaint.

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 14th day of November 2024.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant 

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:24-cv-04108-SOH Document 5 Filed 11/14/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>