Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_07-cv-00004/USCOURTS-ared-1_07-cv-00004-5/pdf.json

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

---

1

 In a Partial Report and Recommendation submitted on June 14, 2007 (docket entry #19), Plaintiff

Pearson was advised that if she wished to proceed with the claims raised on her behalf in Plaintiff

Pryor-Kendrick’s complaint, she should file a separate § 1983 complaint form with an In Forma

Pauperis application. This Order in no way diminishes that direction, and Plaintiff Pearson remains

free to assert these claims in a new cause of action.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

BATESVILLE DIVISION

ALISHA PEARSON

ADC#708929 et al. PLAINTIFF

V. 1:07CV00004 JMM/HDY

JEFF DEEN et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Pearson initiated this § 1983 action by filing a Complaint, unaccompanied by an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, alleging various constitutional claims. Plaintiff’s claims

were asserted on her behalf by the primary Plaintiff, Teresa C.W. Pryor-Kendrick. In an Order dated

June 7, 2007 (docket entry #17), the Court ordered Plaintiff Pearson to file, within thirty days, either

the $350.00 filing fee or a completed In Forma Pauperis application.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that if any communication from the Court to a pro se litigant

is not responded to within thirty days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. More than thirty

days have passed since the entry date of that Order, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s

Order.1

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that this case should be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168

Case 1:07-cv-00004-JMM Document 32 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

(8th Cir. 1995) (“District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to

prosecute, and we review the exercise of this power for abuse of discretion.”)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Pearson’s claims be and they are hereby

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 17th day of July, 2007.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00004-JMM Document 32 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 2