IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

HERMAN H. LEFORS JR. PLAINTIFF

v. No: 3:20-cv-00373 JM

MARTY BOYD, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Herman H. LeFors Jr. filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to

, on November 17, 2020 (Doc. No. 2), and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to

(a) (Doc. No. 4). LeFors has notified the Court of a new free-world address indicating that he has been released from custody. See Doc. Nos. 26 & 31. On April 23, 2021, the Court ordered LeFors to submit the remainder of the $350.00 filing fee or file a fully completed and signed IFP application reflecting his free-world financial status within 30 days. See Doc. No. 27. Because more than 30 days have passed, and LeFors had not complied with or otherwise responded to the April 23 order, the Court dismissed LeFors’ complaint. See Doc. Nos. 35 & 36. LeFors subsequently filed a change of address and requested more time to complete his IFP application. Doc. No. 38. On June 16, 2021, the Court vacated its order and judgment closing the case, and allowed LeFors an additional 30 days to submit an updated IFP application or pay the filing fee. Doc. No. 39. LeFors was cautioned that failure to comply with the Court’s order within that time would result in the dismissal of his case, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). More than 30 days have passed, and LeFors has not complied or otherwise responded to the June 16 order. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court’s orders. See Miller v. Benson,

(8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT LeFors’s complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 3rd day of August, 2021. Oe