United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Â§ 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Â§
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
before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF
Motion, Defendant Haney asks the Court to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for
failure to obey Court Orders and to prosecute this case.
17, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel seeking
Plaintiff's executed medical authorization and other
discovery responses. (ECF No. 20). In the Motion, Defendant
states she first served the request on April 22, 2019. This
request was returned as undeliverable due to Plaintiff's
transfer to the ADC. (Id. at 1). On May 6, 2019,
Defendant sent a second request to Plaintiff in the ADC.
15, 2019, Defendant received a letter from Plaintiff stating
he objected to answering the interrogatories and to releasing
his medical information and would be seeking an attorney.
(ECF No. 20-3). On May 17, 2019, Defendant sent a third
request. This request informed Plaintiff that Defendant would
file a Motion to Compel if Plaintiff failed to respond by
June 15, 2019.
9, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting the Motion to
Compel. Plaintiff was directed to provide Defendant with
responses to her discovery requests, including a signed
medical authorization form, by July 23, 2019. Plaintiff was
advised that his Complaint would be subject to dismissal if
he failed to comply with this Order. (ECF No. 22).
18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of
Time. (ECF No. 23). In his Motion,
Plaintiff states he objects to signing a blank waiver for all
his medical records, including his mental health records, as
doing so would violate his rights under HIPAA. Plaintiff
states that he will be released from custody on August 1,
2019, or shortly thereafter, and he would like time to seek
legal advice after he is released. (Id.). On July
24, 2019, Defendant filed her Response in Opposition to his
Motion for Extension. She asks that Plaintiff's motion be
denied and that his case be dismissed. (ECF No. 24). On July
25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address change
indicating he had been transferred to the Arkansas Department
of Correction Varner Unit. (ECF No. 25).
August 2, 2019, the Court entered an Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension. The Order directed
Plaintiff to provide the requested discovery by August 16,
2019. Plaintiff was advised that failure to provide this
discovery would result in the dismissal of his case, without
further notice, for failure to obey Court Orders. (ECF No.
27). Plaintiff was also advised that he could not postpone
his case indefinitely until he was released from
incarceration at some undetermined date in the future.
(Id. at 2).
filed her current Motion on August 20, 2019. (ECF No. 28). In
her Motion she states that Plaintiff has not produced his
past-due discovery, has failed to respond to the Court's
Order, and has failed to prosecute this case. (ECF No. 28 at
1-2). She further notes that mail sent to Plaintiff on August
5, 2019, was returned to her on August 13, 2019, stating that
Plaintiff had been paroled. She cites Plaintiff's failure
to keep the Court apprised of his current address - in
violation of a prior Court Order - as additional grounds for
dismissal. (Id. at 2).
filed this case on January 3, 2019, alleging he was denied
medical care. (ECF No. 1). Based on documentation filed with
the Court, he has been refusing to cooperate in the discovery
process since May 2019. (ECF No. 22).
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