Lawrence v. Conner

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Lawrence v. Conner

Trial Court Opinion

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

FRANK LAWRENCE PLAINTIFF #07934-20

v. No: 4:20-cv-01224 JM-PSH

KENDRA ROBERTS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Frank Lawrence filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

, on October 13, 2020, while incarcerated at the Pulaski County Detention Facility (Doc. No. 1). He was subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a) (Doc. No. 10). Defendants Kendra Roberts and Bertha Lowe move to dismiss Lawrence’s case for failure to prosecute (Doc. Nos. 39 & 40). Defendants attach a copy of Lawrence’s booking sheet showing that he was released from Pulaski County Sheriff’s custody on November 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 40-1). On December 2, 2021, the Court entered a text order informing Lawrence that if he intended to respond to the defendants’ motion, he must do so within 14 days (Doc. No. 41). The Court’s text order was sent to Lawrence’s last known address but returned as undeliverable with a notation that he is no longer there (Doc. No. 42). More than 14 days have passed, and Lawrence has not responded to the defendants’ motion and mail sent to him has been returned as undeliverable. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice based on Lawrence’s failure to prosecute and to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). See Miller v. Benson,

51 F.3d 166, 168

(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 ORDERDED THAT the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 39) be granted and Lawrence’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) and substituted complaint (Doc. No. 12) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 28th day of December, 2021. □ oN ty JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown