Civil No. 4:19-cv-04053
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's failure to obey a Court order and failure to prosecute this case. Plaintiff, Daniel Austin Chaney, files this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding pro se. On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP). (ECF Nos. 1, 2).
On May 21, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's motion for IFP and directing Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint on or before June 14, 2019. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff has failed to submit an amended complaint by the Court's deadline.
The original Complaint listed the "Texarkana Arkansas Police Department" as the sole Defendant. The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint and directed that he "list as Defendants those individuals who personally violated his federal constitutional rights." --------
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). Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (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, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order directing him to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of July, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge