Shaw v. United States of America
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 7/30/2013. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Clerk's directive and with an Order of this Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (TJD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
JAMES L. SHAW III
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV-P62-R
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 20, 2013, the Clerk of Court issued a deficiency notice to Plaintiff directing him
to sign the complaint and to file a certified copy of his jail/prison trust account statement for the
six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint (DN 4). The deficiency notice advised
Plaintiff that failure to comply within 30 days, without good cause shown, would result in this
matter being brought to the attention of the Court. Plaintiff failed to respond. On June 27, 2013,
therefore, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not
be dismissed for failure to comply with the May 20, 2013, deficiency notice, or alternatively, to
comply with the deficiencies (DN 5). The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the
Order within 21 days would result in dismissal of this civil action. The 21 days have passed
without any response by Plaintiff.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal
of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the
district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). Additionally, courts have inherent
power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained
dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Although federal courts afford pro se litigants some
leniency on matters that require legal sophistication, such as formal pleading rules, the same
policy does not support leniency from court deadlines and other procedures readily understood
by laypersons, particularly where there is a pattern of delay or failure to pursue a case. See
Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 110.
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Clerk’s directive and with an Order of this
Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.
Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.
Date:
July 30, 2013
cc: Plaintiff, pro se
4413.005
2
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?