Hoes v. Gwin et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DEVONTA MONTELL HOES 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 2:24-cv-02096-MEF
OFFICER MATTHEW GWIN,
K-9 Officer;
SERGEANT KEITH SHELBY;
DETECTIVE PROCTOR;
OFFICER L. HENDRICKS, K-9 Unit;
and OFFICER JAMIE FRANCIS 	DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Orders of the Court and
on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24).
Plaintiff, Devonta M. Hoes, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 	He proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Sebastian County Detention
Center when he filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 1).
When he filed this case, Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was required to
immediately inform the Court of any change of address. (ECF No. 3). If Plaintiff was transferred
or released, Plaintiff was told he must advise the Court of any change in his address no later than
thirty (30) days from the time of his transfer to another facility or his release. 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.”
On December 30, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel
and extending the deadlines of the Initial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff was given
Case 2:24-cv-02096-MEF Document 26 Filed 02/18/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
until January 17, 2025, to supply Defendants with discovery responses. This Order was returned
as undeliverable on January 15, 2025. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff had 30 days, or until February 14,
2025, to provide the Court with his new address. No new address was received.
On December 18, 2025, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. 	(ECF No. 24).
Defendants state they have not received Plaintiff’s discovery responses or a new address from
Plaintiff.
To date, Plaintiff has not provided a new address or contacted the Court in anyway. In fact,
the last document filed by the Plaintiff in this case was a supplement to his Complaint filed on
October 2, 2024. (ECF No. 18).
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED and this
case is 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.
DATED this 18th day of February 2025.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02096-MEF Document 26 Filed 02/18/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>