King v. White et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ELIJAH JONQUAILDESHAWN KING 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:24-CV-04084-SOH-CDC
CORPORAL LEUGENE WHITE, SWACCC; and
CORPORAL LUCAS McCLAIN, SWACCC, 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Elijah Jonquaildeshawn King, a prisoner, filed the above-captioned civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally alleging that he was subjected to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement while incarcerated at the Southwest Arkansas Community Correction
Center (“SWACCC”). 	(ECF No. 8). 	Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
(ECF No. 3). 	Chief United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey referred this matter to the
undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3). 	This case is currently
before the Court on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and failure to comply with court orders.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned civil rights action, (ECF No. 1),
and requested to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (ECF No. 2). 	That same day, United States
Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant granted Plaintiff’s IFP application and ordered Plaintiff to
submit an amended complaint by August 27, 2024, failing which this matter would be subject to
dismissal for failure to prosecute. 	(ECF No. 3). 	That order also directed Plaintiff to file a notice
of change of address with the Court within 30 days of any such change and warned that failure to
submit updated contact information within the required timeframe would result in dismissal of the
Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH Document 25 Filed 03/06/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
action. 	Id. 	This Order was not returned as undeliverable.
Plaintiff did not submit an amended complaint, as ordered, by August 27, 2024. 	(ECF No.
7). 	Accordingly, on August 28, 2024, Judge Bryant ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this
matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Court orders. 	The next day, Plaintiff
submitted his Amended Complaint. 	(ECF No. 8). 	This case was subsequently reassigned to the
undersigned.
Upon preservice review of the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), this
Court recommended that only Plaintiff’s condition of confinement claims against Defendant White
and Defendant McClain in their individual capacities proceed and that all other claims be
dismissed 	without 	prejudice. 	(ECF 	No. 	10). 	Later, 	Judge 	Hickey 	adopted 	these
recommendations without objection. 	(ECF No. 19). 	This Court then ordered service of the
Amended Complaint on Defendants McClain and White. 	(ECF No. 11).
While service was pending, Plaintiff filed a motion to further amend his complaint. 	(ECF
No. 13). 	Upon review, this Court denied Plaintiff’s proposed amendments as futile. 	(ECF No.
18). 	After Defendants White and McClain filed their Answer, this Court ordered the Defendants
to either file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiff properly exhausted
his administrative remedies in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by January 7, 2025, or
promptly file a notice informing the Court and parties that the Defendants did not intend to rely on
exhaustion as an affirmative defense at trial. 	(ECF No. 17).
On January 7, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Exhaustion,
along with a memorandum and statement of facts in support. 	(ECF Nos. 20-22). 	On January 10,
2025, this Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion by January 31, 2025, and
Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH Document 25 Filed 03/06/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
provided instructions on how to respond. 	(ECF No. 23).
Plaintiff failed to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, as ordered,
by January 31, 2025. 	Indeed, on February 4, 2025, Plaintiff’s mail was returned to sender as
undeliverable and marked “released—unable to forward.” (ECF No. 24). 	More than 30 days have
now passed since the Court received Plaintiff’s returned mail and Plaintiff has not provided the
Court with his updated contact information. 	In fact, Plaintiff has not communicated with the
Court in any way since submitting his motion to amend, approximately five months ago.
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)); Henderson v.
Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App’x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH Document 25 Filed 03/06/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
In considering a Rule 41(b) dismissal, the Court must balance: (1) “the degree of
[Plaintiff’s] egregious conduct;” (2) the adverse impact of the conduct on the Defendants; and (3)
the Court’s ability to administer justice. 	Rodgers v. Curators of University of Missouri, 135 F.3d
1216, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). 	In Rodgers, the Eighth Circuit set forth
the standard the Court must consider before dismissing with prejudice for failure to prosecute:
Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and should be used only in cases
of willful disobedience of a court order or . . . persistent failure to prosecute a
complaint. 	[The Court must consider] . . . whether in the particular circumstances
of the case, the needs of the court in advancing a crowded docket and preserving
respect for the integrity of its internal procedures are sufficient to justify the harsh
consequences of forever denying a litigant of his day in court. 	However, the
[Court] need not [find] that appellant acted in bad faith, only that he acted
intentionally as opposed to accidentally or involuntarily.
Id.
III. 	ANALYSIS
In this case, Plaintiff has failed to comply the order directing him to update the Court with
his address within 30 days of any change in address. (ECF No. 3). 	Further, Plaintiff has failed to
respond to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as ordered. 	Plaintiff, therefore, has
failed to comply with court orders and has failed to provide any excuse for his noncompliance.
While Defendants have certainly expended resources in this litigation, the Court finds that this
matter is still in its early stages. 	Indeed, this Court issued an order staying in discovery pending
the outcome the exhaustion issue. 	See (ECF No. 17).
Accordingly, this Court recommends that this matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) for failure
to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH Document 25 Filed 03/06/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 8) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen (14) 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.
STATUS OF REFERRAL: NO LONGER REFERRED
DATED this 6th day of March 2025.
/s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04084-SOH Document 25 Filed 03/06/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>