United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
O. Hickey, United States District Judge.
the Court is Plaintiff Wayne Aaron Walsh's failure to
obey the Court's order of December 4, 2017. Plaintiff
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas on October 11, 2016. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
did not submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) with his Complaint. On
April 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No.
6) and again failed to submit an IFP application. On April
17, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Clerk for the Eastern
District that he was no longer incarcerated and had moved to
Malvern, Arkansas. (ECF No. 7).
August 21, 2017, the case was transferred to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
Hot Springs Division. (ECF No. 9). On September 21, 2017, the
Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to submit an IFP
application and file an Amended Complaint by October 6, 2017,
to clarify his claims. (ECF No. 11). On September 29, 2017,
the order sent to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. At
that time, Plaintiff's last communication with the Court
was on April 17, 2017, when he informed the Court of his
change of address. (ECF No. 7).
November 20, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing
Plaintiff's case without prejudice for failing to inform
the Court of his current address. (ECF No. 13). On November
27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File IFP
Application requesting that the Court reopen his case. (ECF
No. 14). The Court granted Plaintiff's motion based on
Plaintiff's assurance that he was capable of prosecuting
this action. (ECF No. 17).
December 4, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint by December 26, 2017. (ECF No. 20).
This order informed Plaintiff that his case would be subject
to dismissal if Plaintiff failed to file an Amended Complaint
by the deadline imposed by the Court. Plaintiff did not
respond. On January 26, 2018, this Court issued an Order
directing Plaintiff to show cause by February 12, 2018, as to
why he failed to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22).
Each of these Orders were mailed to the last known address
provided by Plaintiff and neither has been returned as
undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended
Complaint nor has he responded to the Court's Order to
show cause. Plaintiff's last communication with the Court
was on December 4, 2017, when he filed his Motion to Proceed
IFP. (ECF No. 19).
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
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. A party appearing for himself/herself
shall sign his/her pleadings. . . . 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
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
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
present case, Plaintiff failed to obey the Court's order
directing him to file an Amended Complaint on the
court-approved form for this District. Therefore, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be
dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Specifically, the Court's order
directed Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint on the