United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff Trenkale Brunson pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. According to Plaintiff's address of record he is currently incarcerated in the Miller County Correctional Facility. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a report and recommendation.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's orders and failure to prosecute this matter. After careful consideration, the Court makes the following Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff originally filed this case pro se on March 31, 2014. ECF No. 1. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his constitutional rights by: (1) making false diciplinary reports against him; (2) instituting a post-card-only policy; (3) allowing other inmates to use racial slurs; (4) failing to respond to grievances; and (5) not transferring him to the Arkansas Department of Correction. ECF No. 1, p. 5. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Miller County Detention Center ("MCDC"). Plaintiff's address of record indicates he is still incarcerated in the MCDC.
On March 31, 2014, I directed Plaintiff to file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Application"). ECF No. 3. Plaintiff failed to do so. The March 31, 2014 Order was not returned as undeliverable mail.
On June 11, 2014, I issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to comply with the March 31, 2014 Order and also directing Plaintiff to file a completed IFP Application. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Show Cause Order. The Show Cause Order was not returned as undeliverable mail.
Finally, Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since filing his initial Complaint on March 31, 2014.
2. APPLICABLE LAW
While 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). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states 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 also specifically contemplate dismissal of a case with prejudice on the grounds 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) (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, " and such a dismissal may be with prejudice if there has been "a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.'" Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (quoting Haley v. Kansas City Star, 761 F.2d 489, 491 (8th Cir. 1985)) (emphasis added). Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction, and only to be used in cases of "willful disobedience of a court order" or "where a litigant exhibits a pattern of intentional dely." Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 203 F.3d 524, 527 ...