Hill v. Butler County Jail
ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 04/04/17. Mailed to pro se party TJ Terry Hill by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TJ TERRY HILL,
CASE NO. 16-3252-SAC-DJW
BUTLER COUNTY JAIL,
This pro se civil rights complaint was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate
currently confined in the Hutchinson Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas (“HCF”). On
February 28, 2017, the Court entered a Notice and Order to Show Cause (“NOSC”) (Doc. 5)
giving Plaintiff until March 28, 2017, in which to show cause why Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1)
should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the NOSC. The Court mailed the NOSC to
Plaintiff on February 28, 2017, at his current address of record with the Court. The Court also
mailed the NOSC to Plaintiff at HCF, his current location according to the KDOC. The mail was
returned undeliverable, indicating Plaintiff was no longer at that address. (Docs. 6, 7.) The
Court’s Local Rules provide that “[e]ach attorney or pro se party must notify the clerk in writing
of any change of address or telephone number. Any notice mailed to the last address of record of
an attorney or pro se party is sufficient notice.” D. Kan. Rule 5.1(c)(3). Plaintiff has failed to
provide the Court with a Notice of Change of Address and failed to file a response to the NOSC
within the allowed time.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes a district court, upon a
defendant’s motion, to order the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or ‘a court order.’” Young v. U.S., 316 F.
App’x 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). “This rule has been interpreted as
permitting district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte when one of these conditions is met.” Id.
(citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199,
1204 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003)). “In addition, it is well established in this circuit that a district court
is not obligated to follow any particular procedures when dismissing an action without prejudice
under Rule 41(b).” Young, 316 F. App’x at 771-72 (citations omitted).
The time in which Plaintiff was required to show good cause why this action should not
be dismissed for failure to state a claim has passed without a response from Plaintiff. As a
consequence, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure
to comply with court orders.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that this action is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 4th day of April, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U. S. Senior District Judge
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?