Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Savseda v. Faircloth

November 1, 2005

MARCELION SAVSEDA PLAINTIFF
v.
RHONDA FAIRCLOTH, JAIL ADMINISTRATOR, INDEPENDENCE COUNTY JAIL; TORI THOMPSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, INDEPENDENCE COUNTY JAIL; AND MICHAEL WEBB, JAILER, INDEPENDENCE COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Independence County Jail, initiated this § 1983 action by filing a Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (docket entries #1 and #2), alleging that he was improperly subjected to punitive isolation as a result of an alleged escape attempt. In an Order dated June 16, 2005 (docket entry #4), the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, within thirty days, an Amended Complaint setting forth specific additional information regarding the nature of his claims. This Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the Independence County Jail, his last known address provided to the Court.

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. Interestingly, in light of the discussion in Plaintiff's complaint regarding an escape attempt, the Court's June 16th Order was returned to the Court, marked "no longer here." See docket entry #5. More than thirty days have passed since the entry date of that Order, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Order, nor provided the Court with notice of a change of address. Furthermore, a search of the Arkansas Department of Correction website inmate roster does not locate anyone by Plaintiff's name, or any variation thereof, in their custody.

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 (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's Complaint (docket entry #2) be and it is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051101

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.