Jessie v. Dixion et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. cc:Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV-31-M
DAVID LEE JESSIE
PLAINTIFF
v.
SHELBY DIXON et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff David Lee Jessie, a pro se prisoner, initiated this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Upon filing the instant action, he assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(d) (“All pro se
litigants must provide written notice of a change of address to the Clerk and to the opposing
party or the opposing party’s counsel. Failure to notify the Clerk of an address change may
result in the dismissal of the litigant’s case or other appropriate sanctions.”).
The Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on March 31, 2014. That mailing was
returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to
Forward.” Plaintiff apparently is no longer housed at his address of record, and he has not
advised the Court of a change of address. Therefore, neither notices from this Court nor filings
by Defendants in this action can be served on Plaintiff. In such situations, courts have an
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). Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has
abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate
Order.
Date:
June 23, 2014
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4414.010
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?