Harmon v. Runion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

ROBBY LYNN HARMON PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 4:21-cv-04014 SHERIFF JACKIE RUNION, Miller County, Arkansas; WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER; CAPTAIN GOLDEN ADAMS; DR. TIMOTHY REYNOLDS, Southern Health Partners; DR. KEVIN MCCAIN, Southern Health Partners; NURSE PRACTITIONER STEVEN FOLTZ, Southern Health Partners; NURSE LONI REDFERN, Southern Health Partners; NURSE CHELSEY FOSTER, Southern Health Partners; NURSE LISA DAVIDSON, Southern Health Partners; OFFICER ADMIN G; and NURSE STEVEN KING DEFENDANTS

ORDER Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court order and failure to prosecute this case. Plaintiff, Robby Lynn Harmon, filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on April 13, 2021. (ECF No. 11).

On October 22, 2021, this Court directed Plaintiff to respond to the Medical Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) by November 12, 2021. (ECF No. 25). On October 25, 2021, this Court directed Plaintiff to respond to the Separate County Defendants Walker, Adams, Landreth and Runion’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) by November 15, 2021. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff did not responded to either of the Motions.

On November 29, 2021, an Order to show cause was entered. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff was given until December 20, 2021, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey an order of the Court. Id. On December 14, 2021, Plaintiff responded to the show cause Order. (ECF No. 32).

Plaintiff stated that he was in “Court in Bouie County, Texas” for “the last 6 months.” Id. And that after being returned to the Arkansas Department of Corrections he was on COVID quarantine until November 30, 2021. Plaintiff asked for 60 days to respond to the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Id. Based on Plaintiff’s response, he was given until January 14, 2022, to respond to the motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff has not responded to the motions.

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). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states 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).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order and has failed to prosecute this action.

Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) should be, and hereby is, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of January 2022. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE