Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01059/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1059

___________

Keithen L. Jones, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Randy Johnson, Sheriff, Pulaski *

County; Polk, Chief, Pulaski County *

Jail; - Smith, Major, Pulaski County *

Jail; Elizabeth Taylor, Supervisor, * Appeal from the United States

I.P.O.; Rodney Ford, Area * District Court for the

Supervisor, Arkansas Department of * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Community Correction; Andrea Carter, *

I.P.O., Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Community Correction; Ms. Lancaster, *

I.P.O., Arkansas Department of *

Community Correction; Emerine, *

Supervisor, Arkansas Department of *

Community Correction; Boyce Hamlett, *

I.P.O., Arkansas Department of *

Community Correction; Mrs. Laws, *

I.P.O., Arkansas Department of *

Community Correction; Mr. Williams, *

Hearing Examiner, Post Prison *

Transfer Board; Leroy Brownlee, *

Chairman, Post Prison Transfer Board, *

*

Appellees. *

Appellate Case: 06-1059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2006 Entry ID: 2064292
-2-

___________

Submitted: June 19, 2006

Filed: July 6, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Keithen Jones, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals the district court's preservice

dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with

a local rule. Mr. Jones moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Leaving

fee collection to the district court, we grant Mr. Jones IFP status, and we reverse. 

While confined at the Arkansas Department of Community Correction Omega

Technical Violator Center (TVC), Mr. Jones sought to proceed IFP on his section

1983 complaint. On August 17, 2005, a magistrate judge granted Mr. Jones IFP

status, and a copy of the IFP order was mailed to Mr. Jones at TVC but was returned

"refused." The magistrate judge soon received a letter from the TVC supervisor

stating that Mr. Jones had been released on August 15. On October 13, the district

court dismissed the complaint because Mr. Jones had "failed to keep the Court

apprised of his most current address." On October 20, Mr. Jones advised the court

that he was housed at the Pulaski County Detention Facility (PCDF). He later

submitted grievance documents showing that from September 19 to November 2 he

had been housed at PCDF, where indigent detainees had to wait thirty days to receive

a stamped envelope. 

In support of its dismissal, the district court cited Uniform United States District

Court Rules for Arkansas, Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), which states that "[i]t is the duty of

any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties

Appellate Case: 06-1059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2006 Entry ID: 2064292
-3-

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 knowledge of them. See Jetton v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 121

F.3d 423, 426 (8th Cir. 1997). We review a district court's application of its local

rules for abuse of discretion. See Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. Nat'l Bank, 354

F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir. 2003). 

By not sending an address change for more than two months after his release

from TVC, Mr. Jones technically violated his duty under the local rule to "promptly

notify" the court of his change of address. The local rule does not authorize dismissal

for such a violation, however. It authorizes dismissal for failure to respond to a court

communication within thirty days, but the dismissal here was preceded only by the

August 17 IFP order, which Mr. Jones may not have received and which, in any event,

did not require a response. We therefore conclude the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing Mr. Jones's action. 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1059 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2006 Entry ID: 2064292