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)

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