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

ARMANDO GUTIERREZ PLAINTIFF

v. Case No: 4:22-cv-00528-JM-PSH

VOLKMAN, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Armando Gutierrez filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to

, on June 6, 2022 (Doc. No. 1). In its initial order to Gutierrez, the Court notified him of his duty to promptly notify the Clerk and the parties of any change in his address; the Court also notified Gutierrez that if any communication from the Court to him is not responded to within 30 days, his case may be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. No. 5. On June 17, 2022, mail sent to Gutierrez was returned as undeliverable, and the envelope was entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 6. The Court entered a text order that day notifying Gutierrez that mail could not be delivered to him because he was no longer at the address he provided. Doc. No. 7. Gutierrez was directed to provide notice of his current mailing address by no later than thirty days from the entry of the June 17 text order. He was warned that his failure to provide a current mailing address may cause his complaint to be dismissed. A printed version of the text order was sent to him at his last known address. His mail continues to be returned. See Doc. Nos. 8-9. More than 30 days have passed, and Gutierrez has not complied or otherwise responded to the June 17 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 Gutierrez’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. DATED this 26" day of July, 2022.

UNI Is mE | ISTRICT JUDGE