Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_19-cv-01018/USCOURTS-arwd-1_19-cv-01018-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

EDDIE LEE HAMPTON, III PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 1:19-cv-1018

DAVID NORWOOD, Sheriff Ouachita County; 

and STEPHANIE HOLMES, Nurse Ouachita

County Detention Center DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Eddie Lee Hampton, III’s failure to comply with 

orders of the Court. Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on May 2, 2019, in the 

Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). On May 3, 2019, the case was transferred to the 

Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff filed an Amended 

Complaint on May 22, 2019. (ECF No. 9). 

On November 14, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for 

Extension of Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 21). That same day, the Court entered an order directing 

Plaintiff to file a response to the motion by December 5, 2019. (ECF No. 24). This order informed 

Plaintiff that failure to timely and properly comply with the order would result in this case being 

dismissed. To date the Court’s order has not been returned as undeliverable and Plaintiff has not 

filed a response to Defendants’ motion.

On December 10, 2019, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by 

December 20, 2019, as to why he failed to file a response to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

and Alternative Motion for Extension of Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 25). This order informed 

Plaintiff that failure to timely and properly comply with the order would result in this case being 

Case 1:19-cv-01018-SOH Document 29 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
2

dismissed. To date, this order has not been returned as undeliverable and Plaintiff has not 

responded to the Court’s order to show cause.

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). The Local Rules state in pertinent part:

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 

. . . 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.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

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), 

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). 

 Plaintiff has failed to obey two orders of the Court. Therefore, the Court finds that this 

case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 

5.5(c)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of January, 2020.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey 

Susan O. Hickey

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:19-cv-01018-SOH Document 29 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>