United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
O. Hickey United States District Judge.
Troy Roddy submitted this pro se action for filing
on June 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1). Currently before the Court is
Plaintiff's failure to follow a court order, failure to
prosecute, and failure to exhaust his administrative
filed his Complaint on June 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1). On July 14,
2017, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file
a completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
application or pay the filing fee and to submit his Complaint
on the court-approved form by July 28, 2017. (ECF No. 8). In
the order, Plaintiff was advised that his case would be
subject to dismissal if he failed to comply with the order.
(ECF No. 8). Plaintiff submitted a completed IFP application
(ECF No. 11) on July 24, 2017, but did not submit his
Complaint as directed by the Court. Instead, Plaintiff filed
a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, stating medication
affected his mobility and the use of his hands. (ECF Nos. 10,
review, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed
for failure to comply with the Court's previous order,
failure to prosecute, and failure to exhaust administrative
initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff is a Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) three-striker
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is therefore barred
from proceeding in forma pauperis unless
his claims fall within the exception to the three-strike
rule. See Roddy v. Holloway, Case No.
2:11-CV-00004-JLH-JJV (E.D. Ark. 2011) (noting five prior
cases qualifying as strikes). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
original Complaint provides a litany of allegations against
Defendants, but the only allegation that could permit an
exception to the three-strike rule states that Plaintiff was
in “imminent danger” of serious physical
injury due to an unspecified “forced treatment.”
(ECF No. 1, p. 1) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff was
ordered to file his Complaint on the court-approved complaint
form by July 28, 2017, so that the Court could determine if
he qualified for an exception to the three-strike rule.
Plaintiff did not do so.
Failure to Comply with a Court Order and Failure to
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
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
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate
dismissal of a case 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.” Brown ...