Williams v. Slaughter et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
JESSIE RAY WILLIAMS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:25-cv-01009-SOH-SGS
DEPUTY JAMES SLAUGHTER;
DEPUTY JOSH POLLOCK;
DEPUTY DERRICK HILL; and
LACEE MONDRAGON 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendants Derrick Hill, Lacee Mondragon, and Josh Pollock’s
(hereinafter “Ashley County Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 28), and a Joint Motion
to Dismiss filed by Defendants Hill, Mondragon, Pollock, and James Slaughter, (ECF No. 31).
Plaintiff has not responded, and his time to do so has passed. 	Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge,
referred the instant motion to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
Recommendation.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Jessie Ray Williams, originally submitted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on
February 5, 2025. (ECF No. 1). Along with his Complaint, he submitted an application to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). The Court granted Plaintiff IFP status on the same day.
(ECF No. 3).
Case 1:25-cv-01009-SOH Document 37 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On May 15, 2025, Ashley County Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Answers to
Discovery Requests. (ECF No. 16). After opening discovery with the Initial Scheduling Order,
the Court, on July 2, 2025, entered an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to Ashley County
Defendants’ Motion to Compel explaining why he failed to fully respond to the propounded
discovery requests. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff was given until July 21, 2025, to respond. Id. This
Order was not returned as undeliverable mail, and Plaintiff failed to respond.
On August 4, 2025, the Court granted Ashley County Defendants’ Motion to Compel and
ordered Plaintiff to produce the responses to the Ashley County Defendants’ discovery requests.
(ECF No. 27). Plaintiff was specifically advised that failure to comply with this Order would be
considered a failure to prosecute this matter and subject the case to dismissal. 	Id. 	Plaintiff’s
responses were due to the Ashley County Defendants by August 25, 2025. Id.
On August 28, 2025, the Ashley County Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. (ECF
No. 28). In this Motion, Ashley County Defendants seek dismissal based on Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Court’s Order compelling the discovery production. Ashley County Defendants
state they never received Plaintiff’s responses. Id.
On August 30, 2025, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to Ashley
County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff was again advised that failure to
respond would subject this case to dismissal. Id. Plaintiff’s response was due by September 18,
2025. Id. This Order was not returned as undeliverable mail, and Plaintiff has failed to respond.
On September 5, 2025, all Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s
failure to appear at his properly noticed deposition. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff did not respond.
On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of change of address to the Ashley County
Detention Center. (ECF No. 35).
Case 1:25-cv-01009-SOH Document 37 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
On November 14, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 36). In this
Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to respond to Ashley County
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and all Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given
until December 5, 2025, to respond to this Order to Show Cause. Id. The Order to Show Cause
was mailed to Plaintiff’s new address of record at the Ashley County Detention Center, and it was
not returned as undeliverable mail. Plaintiff failed to respond.
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).
Further, 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
Case 1:25-cv-01009-SOH Document 37 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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.
Finally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) also provides for sanctions when a party
fails to obey a discovery order. One such sanction the Court may impose is the dismissal of the
action or proceeding in whole or in part. F ED. R. C IV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v).
As evidenced by the docket, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and comply with the
Court’s Orders despite multiple opportunities to do so. 	The only communication Plaintiff has
made with the Court since initially filing his Complaint was to file a Notice of Change of Address.
However, the Court never received any mail sent to any of Plaintiff’s address returned as
undeliverable. Therefore, it must presume Plaintiff received all the Court’s Orders, Defendants’
notices of deposition, and Defendants’ discovery requests, but intentionally chose not to respond
to any of these communications.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery requests and attend his scheduled
deposition adversely impacts the Defendants herein. They have expended resources attempting to
Case 1:25-cv-01009-SOH Document 37 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
conduct discovery, and Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in said discovery impedes Defendants’
ability to defend against Plaintiff’s claims.
Finally, the Court cannot administer justice without Plaintiff’s cooperation. Accordingly,
the Court finds Plaintiff has intentionally refused to participate in discovery with Defendants and
intentionally refused to respond to the Court’s Orders warranting dismissal of his claims with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). Rodgers, 135 F.3d at 1219.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b)
and 37(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), that Ashley County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
28) and Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
REFERRAL STATUS: The referral in this case shall be terminated.
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 12th day of December 2025.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HON. SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01009-SOH Document 37 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>