Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04045/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04045-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paige Betts
Defendant
Aaron Hill
Plaintiff
Otto Warner
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

AARON HILL PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:24-cv-4045

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OTTO WARNER;

and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PAIGE BETTS DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Hill’s failure to comply with Court Orders 

and prosecute this matter. Plaintiff originally submitted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se, on 

May 14, 2024, as part of a class action.0F

1

 ECF No. 1. His Complaint was provisionally filed, and 

Plaintiff was directed to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and an 

amended complaint. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint on June 4, 2024. 

ECF No. 5. However, he failed to submit his completed IFP application as ordered. 

On June 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show 

cause why he failed to follow the Court’s May 14, 2024, Order and submit a completed IFP 

application. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s response the Show Cause Order was due on June 27, 2024.

Id. This Order to Show Cause was not returned as undeliverable mail and Plaintiff failed to 

respond. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since June 4, 2024. ECF No. 5.

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 

1 Pro se prisoner plaintiff’s are not suitably situated to represent a class of fellow prisoners in a class action. See e.g., 

Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975).

Case 4:24-cv-04045-SOH Document 7 Filed 07/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

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).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and comply with the Court’s Orders. 

Plaintiff failed to submit his completed IFP application as ordered. Therefore, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 

No. 1) should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of July, 2024.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey 

Susan O. Hickey

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:24-cv-04045-SOH Document 7 Filed 07/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>