IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER FORTSON, SR. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-06022

JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JOSH WALDRUM, Clark County Detention Center, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to

. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (ECF No. 8). The address Plaintiff supplied indicated that he was no longer incarcerated. For this reason, an Order was entered directing Plaintiff to complete and file a new IFP application to determine if Plaintiff should be required to pay all, or a portion of, the fees and costs of the lawsuit. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff’s completed IFP was due by April 18, 2023. Plaintiff was advised that failure to pay the filing fee or resubmit an IFP application by the deadline shall subject the case to dismissal. Plaintiff did not file an IFP motion or pay the filing fee. Out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiff was provided with a second opportunity to comply when the Court issued its Show Cause Order. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff’s response to the Show Cause Order was due by May 24, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, filed an IFP motion, or responded to the Show Cause Order. He has not requested an extension of time to file his responses, and no mail has been returned as undeliverable. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962) (stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), 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,

(8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires parties appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders. (ECF Nos. 9, 13). Accordingly, the Court finds that this case should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of June, 2023.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

2