Vagante De Rossitte v. Byers et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
IKARA CHRISTIANA EARNESTINE
EUGE VAGANTE DE ROSSITTE
(formerly known as Christopher Eugene De
Rossitte 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:25-cv-06096-SOH-MEF
WARDEN JERRY BYERS, et. al. 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred
this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Currently
before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 11, 2025. 	(ECF No. 1). 	That same day, the
Court entered an Order which severed Plaintiff claims concerning her allegations of a blanket book
ban at the Arkansas Division of Correction Ouachita River Unit from her claims concerning
retaliation for her gender preference and legal activities. (ECF No. 3). The Clerk was directed to
open a new case for the book ban claim, and Plaintiff was directed to file an Amended Complaint
for both this case and the new case.0F
1 The Amended Complaint deadline was set for October 14,
2025. (Id.).
On October 22, 2025, several days past the deadline to submit her Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Extension of Time. (ECF No. 9). This Motion was granted, and
the deadline to file an Amended Complaint was extended to December 15, 2025. (ECF No. 10).
1 Vagante De Rossitte v. Byers, Case No. 6:25-cv-06097
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 23 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reassert Motion for Extension of Time to Amend
Complaint. (ECF No. 11). This Motion was denied as moot on October 31, 2025. (ECF No. 12).
On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 18).
On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a Third Motion for Extension of Time, requesting a
deadline of February 15, 2026. (ECF No. 19). This Motion was granted in part, and Plaintiff was
given a deadline of January 16, 2026, to submit her Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff
then submitted a Fourth Motion for Extension of Time on January 12, 2026, again requesting a
deadline of February 15, 2026. (ECF No. 21). This Motion was granted in part, and Plaintiff was
given until January 30, 2026, to submit her Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22). 	Plaintiff was
advised that no further extensions would be granted. (Id.).
Plaintiff has had 4 months and 24 days to submit her Amended Complaint in this case, and
she has failed to do so. The Court notes that during this same period, Plaintiff filed another case
on October 24, 2025: Vagante De Rossitte v. Bondi, Case No. 6:25-cv-06113. 	This case was
closed, and Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen on January 20, 2026.
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).
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 23 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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 received multiple extensions of time for a period of several months to submit
an Amended Complaint, and she has failed to do so, instead submitting a motion for preliminary
injunction and filing another separate case. 	Plaintiff has failed to comply with Court Orders.
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 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 	Complaint 	(ECF 	No. 	1) 	be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
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 a 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.
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 23 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
DATED this 4th day of February 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-06096-JTS Document 23 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>