Jordan v. Ghormley

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JAVIER JORDAN 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:25-cv-04005-CDC
LT. KAREN GHORMLEY
(Nevada County Jail) 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was directly assigned
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to General Order 2024-02, but not all parties to the
action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly,
the case will automatically be reassigned to Chief United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey
and referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3). 	Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Local
Rules of Civil Procedure and failure to prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint in Jordan v. Ghormley, Case No. 4:25-cv-04002-CDC
on January 21, 2025. (4:25-cv-04002-CDC, ECF No. 1). On January 22, 2025, the Court entered
an Order severing the case into two cases. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff was directed to file an in forma
pauperis (IFP) application and an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 2).
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and an IFP application on February 21, 2025. (ECF
Nos. 4, 5). Because the IFP application lacked a certificate of inmate accounts, the Court entered
an Order directing Plaintiff to submit a completed IFP application by March 17, 2025. (ECF No.
6). 	When Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court entered a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to
Case 4:25-cv-04005-SOH Document 10 Filed 05/05/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
show cause for his failure by April 11, 2025. 	(ECF No. 8). This Order was returned as
undeliverable on April 1, 2025, indicating no forwarding address was available. (ECF No. 9). The
deadline for Plaintiff to inform the Court of his new address was set for May 1, 2025. (Id.).
To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit either his IFP application or his new address. Nor
has he otherwise communicated with the Court.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Although 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 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 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 that
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 added).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local
Rule 5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed
Case 4:25-cv-04005-SOH Document 10 Filed 05/05/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to
prosecute this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 5th day of May 2025.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04005-SOH Document 10 Filed 05/05/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>