Jackson v. Walker et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
WESLEY ALLEN JACKSON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:24-cv-01094-SOH-BAB
POLICE OFFICER T. WALKER, El Dorado
Police Department; and SERGEANT EVERETT,
Union County Sheriff’s Office 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose
of making a Report and Recommendation. 	The case is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s failure
to obey an Order of the Court.
I. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 	He proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). 	Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Union County Detention Center (“UCDC”)
at the time he filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1 at 1).
This case was initially part of Jackson v. Roberts, et al., Civil No. 1:24-cv-1064. 	However,
because the claims arose out of different occurrences and bore no logical relationship to each
other, they were severed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Order
entered on December 19, 2024. 	(ECF No. 5). 	This case was opened. 	Plaintiff was then
directed to file an Amended Complaint asserting only his claims against Defendants Walker and
Everett. 	Id. 	The Amended Complaint was to be filed by no later than January 9, 2025.
Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was required to immediately inform the Court of
Case 1:24-cv-01094-SOH Document 10 Filed 02/27/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
any change of address. 	(ECF No. 5). 	If Plaintiff was transferred or released, Plaintiff was told
he must advise the Court of any change in his address by no later than thirty (30) days from the
time of his transfer to another facility or his release. 	Id. 	Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the
Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires pro se parties to “promptly
notify the Clerk and 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.”
Plaintiff did not file his Amended Complaint. 	Out of an abundance of caution and to
ensure procedural fairness, a Show Cause Order was entered. 	(ECF No. 8). 	Plaintiff’s response
to the Show Cause Order was due by February 11, 2025.
On January 23, 2025, all mail sent to the Plaintiff at the UCDC was returned as
undeliverable marked return to sender—attempted, not known. 	(ECF No. 9). 	This gave
Plaintiff thirty days or until February 24, 2025, to provide the Court with a new address.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line 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).
Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas
requires parties appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action
diligently.
To date, Plaintiff has not provided a new address or contacted the Court in anyway. 	The
Court has confirmed by review of the UCDC detainee roster that Plaintiff is not incarcerated
Case 1:24-cv-01094-SOH Document 10 Filed 02/27/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
there.1
II. 	CONCLUSION
For this reason, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.5(c)(2)
of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.
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.
DATED this 27 th day of February 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 https://www.unioncountysheriff.net/inmateRoster (last visited February 27, 2025).
Case 1:24-cv-01094-SOH Document 10 Filed 02/27/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>