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.

Mason v. Mobley

August 9, 2007

SHIRLEY J. MASON PLAINTIFF
v.
EARNESTINE MOBLEY, SUPERVISOR, CRITTENDEN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; AND DR. STRATOR, CRITTENDEN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY DEFENDANTS



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

ORDER

Plaintiff initiated this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing a Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis , alleging claims related to conditions of confinement at the Crittenden County Detention Center. In an Order dated July 2, 2007 (docket entry #40), the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit, within thirty days, any additional information she might possess to assist the Court with obtaining service on the Defendants. This Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the most-recent address known to the Court, the Crittenden County Detention Center, but has been returned as undeliverable. See docket entry # 42. A search of the Arkansas Department of Correction internet inmate list does not show her to be in their custody, and Plaintiff has provided no other address to the Court.

The Court has no other means by which to contact Plaintiff, nor any other address with which to reach her, and has not had any contact from the Plaintiff since May 4, 2007. Plaintiff did not receive the Order granting her thirty days in which to respond to the Court's request for further information, so it would seem futile to wait longer for a response from her.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) directs pro se litigants 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" and 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. 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.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2007.

20070809

© 1992-2007 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.