Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_08-cv-00226/USCOURTS-ared-4_08-cv-00226-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

 Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that: “It 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, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. A party

appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and

telephone number. If 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. Any party proceeding pro se

shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Emphasis

added.) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

KEITH A. OLIVER

Reg. #21513-009 PLAINTIFF

V. 4:08CV00226 JMM/JTR

 

KAY R. HOWELL, Warden,

Wrightsville Unit, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at a federal halfway house, has commenced this pro

se § 1983 action alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated

at the Wrightsville Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. See docket entries #2 and #6.

 For the reasons set forth herein, the case will be dismissed, without prejudice. 

On June 2, 2008, Defendants filed two Motions to Dismiss, arguing that this case should be

dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly exhaust his

administrative remedies. See docket entries #15 and #18. On June 6, 2008, the Court entered an

Order giving Plaintiff thirty days to file a Response to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. See docket

entry #19. Importantly, the Court advised Plaintiff that the failure to timely and properly do so

would result in the dismissal of his case, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).1 Id.

Case 4:08-cv-00226-JMM Document 24 Filed 07/15/08 Page 1 of 2
As of the date of this Order of Dismissal, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s June 6, 2008

Order, and the time for doing so has expired.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly comply with the Court’s June 6, 2008 Order.

2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (docket entries #15 and #18) are DENIED, AS

MOOT.

3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from this Order of Dismissal and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good

faith.

Dated this 15th day of July, 2008.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-00226-JMM Document 24 Filed 07/15/08 Page 2 of 2