Williams v. Jehan

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of prosecution. Plaintiff's motion 3 to amend, combined second motion for leave to proceed in forma paueris, for issuance of summons, and motion 4 to supplement, and motion 6 for issuance of summons are denied as moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 8/28/2012. (Mailed to pro se party James Williams by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JAMES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 12-3137-SAC

(FNU) JEHAN,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action while incarcerated in
the Kansas Department of Corrections.
By its order of July 24, 2012 (Doc. 8), the court directed
plaintiff to show cause on or before August 24 why this matter
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Plaintiff was advised the failure to file a
timely response might result in the dismissal of this matter without
additional prior notice.
The order mailed to plaintiff was returned for insufficient
address on August 8, 2012 (Doc. 9) and was remailed on the same day.
There has been no response to the order of July 24.
A court has the inherent power to dismiss an action for failure
to

prosecute

in

order

to

assure

the

orderly

and

expeditious

resolution of the cases on its docket. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides, in part, “If the plaintiff fails... to
comply with [court] rules or a court order, a defendant may move to

dismiss the action or any claim against it.” The Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals has interpreted this rule “to permit courts to dismiss
actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” Olsen v.
Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003). Having considered
the record, the court concludes this matter may be dismissed due to
plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s order of July 24,
2012.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is dismissed
without prejudice due to lack of prosecution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motions to amend (Doc. 3),
combined second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, for
issuance of summons, and motion to supplement (Doc. 4) and motion
for issuance of summons (Doc. 6) are denied as moot.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 28th day of August, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

2