Dudley v. Jackson et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
KARANYA MARQUIS DUDLEY 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:25-cv-04101-SGS
ZOE JACKSON; JACOB MEADOWS; DOE;
JERRY MARTIN; CONNIE MITCHELL;
MATT STEPHANS; JUDGE CARLTON JONES;
JUDGE WREN AUTREY; JUDGE BRENT HALTEN;
JUDGE TAMMY POTTER; and AMY FEEDMAN 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Karanya Marquis Dudley, filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
The case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge; however, because not
all parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and this document
will 	be 	dispositive 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	claims, 	this 	document 	will 	be 	filed 	as 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation, and the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge
Susan O. Hickey. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
General Order 2024-02.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initially filed her Complaint on December 3, 2025 along with a partial Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	(ECF Nos. 1-2). 	The Court provisionally filed Plaintiff’s
Complaint and partial IFP Application but also ordered Plaintiff to file a complete IFP Application
or pay the full filing fee December 29, 2025. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was also advised that failure
Case 4:25-cv-04101-SOH Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
to respond with his IFP Application or filing fee would subject this case to dismissal. Id. This
Order was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record and not returned as undeliverable mail. Plaintiff
failed to respond.
On January 6, 2026, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show
cause why she failed to comply with the Court’s December 3, 2025 Order. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff’s
response was due January 27, 2026. Id. Plaintiff was again advised that failure to respond would
subject this case to dismissal. Id. This Order to Show Cause was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of
record, and it was not returned as undeliverable mail.
Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since initially filing her Complaint on
December 3, 2025. (ECF No. 1).
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. Civ. 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),
Case 4:25-cv-04101-SOH Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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).
Furthermore, a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) operates as an adjudication on the merits
unless it is otherwise specified. Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown, 806 F.2d at 803. In considering a
Rule 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.
As evidenced by the docket, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders, and she
has failed to prosecute this matter. However, the Court does not find dismissal with prejudice is
warranted here. Accordingly, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the
Court hereby recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
REFERRAL STATUS: The referral in this case shall be terminated.
Case 4:25-cv-04101-SOH Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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 17th day of February 2026.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HON. SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04101-SOH Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>