Harrison v. Medical Staff et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JESSIE WILLIAM HARRISON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:24-CV-04109-SOH-MEF
JANE AND JOHN DOE JAILERS;
JANE AND JOHN DOE MEDICAL STAFF; and
NEVADA COUNTY 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Jessie William Harrison, a prisoner, filed the above-captioned civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally alleging that he was provided constitutionally inadequate
medical care while detained at the Nevada County Detention Center (“NCDC”). (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. (ECF No. 8). 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 October 22, 2024, Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned civil rights action (ECF No.
1), but he did not pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
Accordingly, United States Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant ordered Plaintiff to either pay the
statutory filing fee or submit an IFP application by November 12, 2024, failing which this matter
Case 4:24-cv-04109-SOH Document 17 Filed 02/18/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
would be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 2). On November 4, 2024,
Plaintiff submitted a change of address reflecting that he had been transferred from the NCDC to
the Omega Tech Center in Malvern, Arkansas. (ECF No. 4). On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff’s
mail to the NCDC was returned as undeliverable and resent to his updated address. (ECF No. 5).
When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order directing him to either pay the
statutory filing fee or submit a complete IFP application by November 12, 2024, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show cause on November 15, 2024, why this case should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute. (ECF No. 6). On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a completed IFP
application. (ECF No. 7). The next day, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP.
(ECF No. 8). That same day, after preservice review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court ordered that the Complaint be served on Danny Martin, Nevada
County Sheriff.1 (ECF No. 10). This Order also directed Sheriff Martin to provide information
to potentially identify the John and Jane Doe defendants. Id.
Sheriff Martin responded to the Court’s order with the potentially identifying information.
(ECF Nos. 12, 14). Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to review the information and
identify who, specifically, purportedly violated his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 15). The
Court ordered Plaintiff to submit his response within 21 days of the date of the order, or by January
1 Because Plaintiff only identified unnamed individuals as defendants to this action, the Court
added Sheriff Martin as a defendant for the purposes of service only. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff
named the John and Jane Doe defendants—jailers and medical professionals—in their official and
individual capacities. “A suit against a public official in his official capacity is actually a suit
against the entity for which the official is an agent.” Elder-Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 986
(8th Cir. 2006). Thus, after service was obtained on Sheriff Martin, he was administratively
terminated as a defendant, but Nevada County itself remains a defendant to this action. (ECF No.
15).
Case 4:24-cv-04109-SOH Document 17 Filed 02/18/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
9, 2025, failing which this matter would be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. This
Order was not returned as undeliverable.
That deadline passed and Plaintiff did not submit a response to the Court’s order or
communicate with the Court in any way. Accordingly, on January 21, 2025, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure
to comply with court orders. (ECF No. 16). The show cause response was due by February 11,
2025. Id. This Order also has not been returned as undeliverable. That deadline has now also
passed, and Plaintiff has not responded in any way. Indeed, Plaintiff has not communicated with
the Court since submitting his IFP application over two 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
Case 4:24-cv-04109-SOH Document 17 Filed 02/18/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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 him to respond to
the information provided by Sheriff Martin (ECF No. 15), and the Court’s show cause order (ECF
No. 16). These orders were not returned as undeliverable. But Plaintiff has not responded or
communicated with the Court in any way. 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 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 February 2025.
/s/	
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04109-SOH Document 17 Filed 02/18/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>