Jones v. Yiely et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JONATHAN L. JONES 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:24-cv-04114-SOH-BAB
OFFICER YIELY; DEPUTY LEE;
CORPORAL POOLE; and NURSE SMITH 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Jonathan L. Jones, filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. However,
because not all parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and this
document will be dispositive of Plaintiff’s claims, this document will be filed as a Report and
Recommendation and the case will automatically be reassigned to Chief United States District
Judge Susan O. Hickey. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
General Order 2024-02.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Jonathan L. Jones originally submitted this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action pro se on July
8, 2024 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) in the Eastern
District of Arkansas. (ECF Nos. 1-2). The Eastern District Court first granted Plaintiff IFP status
on August 27, 2024, (ECF No. 6), and then transferred the case to this Court on November 4, 2024,
(ECF No. 7).
Case 4:24-cv-04114-SOH Document 14 Filed 02/24/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On November 6, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. In this
Order, Plaintiff was advised his failure to respond with an Amended Complaint would subject his
case to dismissal. (ECF No. 11). This Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record in the
Miller County Detention Center. 	It was returned as undeliverable mail on November 18, 2024.
(ECF No. 12). Previous mail sent to Plaintiff was also returned on November 19, 2024. (ECF No.
13). Plaintiff was provided thirty days, to update the Court on his current address. He has failed
to do so. 	The Court has never received any communication from Plaintiff since his case was
transferred here on November 4, 2024.
II. 	DISCUSSION
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. C IV. 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 added).
Case 4:24-cv-04114-SOH Document 14 Filed 02/24/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Furthermore, a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) operates as an adjudication on the merits
unless it is otherwise specified. FED. R. C IV. P. 41(b); Brown, 806 F.2d at 803. 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 provides 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.
As evidenced by the docket, Plaintiff has completely failed to prosecute this case and
comply with the Court’s Orders. Plaintiff failed to keep the Court informed of his current address
and has never prosecuted his claims. However, the Court does not find dismissal with prejudice
is warranted here.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the
Court hereby recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
STATUS REFERRAL: Referral should be terminated.
Case 4:24-cv-04114-SOH Document 14 Filed 02/24/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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.
DATED this 24th day of February 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04114-SOH Document 14 Filed 02/24/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>