Sikorski v. LNU (1) et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dismissing this matter for lack of prosecution and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by District Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/18/2011. Mailed to pro se party William Lynndon Sikorski by regular mail. (ms)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS WILLIAM LYNNDON SIKORSKI, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION No. 11-3152-SAC vs. FNU LNU, Administrator, Chase County Jail, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By its Memorandum and Order of September 14, 2011, the court directed plaintiff to show cause on or before why this matter should not be summarily dismissed and advised him that the failure to file a timely response might result in the dismissal of this matter. On September 15, 2011, the clerk of the court docketed correspondence from plaintiff notarized on August 22, 2011 (Doc. 5). This correspondence is addressed to the Kansas Bar Association and concerns plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with his criminal defense attorney, and it does not appear to be related to the present action. order to show cause. Plaintiff has filed no response to the A federal court has the inherent power to act sua sponte to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Link v. Wabash R. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with procedural rules or orders of the court. While the text of Rule 41(b) contemplates such dismissal upon the motion of a defendant, the Rule has been interpreted to allow the sua sponte dismissal of an action. Link, id.; Rogers v. Andrus Transp. Services, 502 F.3d 1147, 1151 (10th Cir. 2007). See also Theede v. U.S. Department of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 1999)(affirming dismissal magistrate where pro judge’s se plaintiff’s recommendation of failure to dismissal object was due to to plaintiff’s failure to inform the court of his correct address). The court finds plaintiff has been given notice of the court’s intention to dismiss this matter in the absence of a response from him and concludes this matter should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in its order of September 14, 2011. IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 18th day of October, 2011. S/ Sam A. Crow SAM A. CROW United States Senior District Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?