Bell v. Cox

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
EBONEE JACQUESE BELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:25-CV-04004-SOH-MEF
LIEUTENANT RAMI COX, Jail Administrator, LCDC, 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Ebonee Jacquese Bell, a prisoner, has initiated a civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally alleging that Lafayette County Detention Center (“LCDC”) officials
violated her constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The case was directly
assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to General Order 2024-02, but not all
parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Accordingly, this case will automatically be reassigned to Chief United States District Judge Susan
O. Hickey and referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3). This matter is currently before the Court on
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute this case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Bell v. Smith, et al., Case No. 4:25-CV-04001-SOH-
MEF (W.D. Ark. Jan. 14, 2025) (“Bell I”). United States Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant
granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP in that case. See id. (ECF No. 4). That Order also
directed Plaintiff to file a notice of change of address with the court within thirty (30) days of any
such change, failing which this matter would be subject to dismissal. Id.
Case 4:25-cv-04004-SOH Document 7 Filed 03/18/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Upon preservice review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), Judge
Bryant concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint contained unrelated (or misjoined) claims. Id. (ECF
No. 7). Accordingly, consistent with Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Bryant ordered that the unrelated claims be severed from that action, that the Clerk’s office open
two new actions regarding the severed claims, and that Plaintiff file an amended complaint
asserting only the claims pertaining to each severed action. See id. In this case, therefore,
Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint asserting only her claims related to her
purported unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the LCDC. See (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff
was also directed to file a complete IFP application in this case. Id. Both the amended complaint
and IFP application were due by February 11, 2025, failing which this matter would be subject to
dismissal. Id. On February 3, 2025, that Order was returned as undeliverable, marked “return to
sender, refused, unable to forward.” (ECF No. 4).
When the deadline to submit the amended complaint and IFP application passed with no
response from Plaintiff, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be
dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 6). The
show cause response was due by March 7, 2025. Id. The show cause deadline has now passed,
and Plaintiff has not responded in any way. Indeed, Plaintiff has not communicated with the
Court since initiating this action over two months ago and her current whereabouts are unknown.
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:
Case 4:25-cv-04004-SOH Document 7 Filed 03/18/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders—the order directing her to file an
amended complaint and IFP application (ECF No. 2) and the Court’s show cause order (ECF No.
6). Further, Plaintiff did not provide an updated address with the court within 30 days of any such
change in accordance with the Local Rules. Plaintiff’s current whereabouts, therefore, are
unknown and Plaintiff has not responded or communicated with the Court in any way since
initiating Bell I over two months ago. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to comply with court orders
and has failed to provide any excuse for his noncompliance. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this Court recommends that Plaintiff’s
Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
Case 4:25-cv-04004-SOH Document 7 Filed 03/18/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
No. 1) 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 18th day of March 2025.
/s/	
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04004-SOH Document 7 Filed 03/18/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>