Oates v. Mutter et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers. Because it appears 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-P120-GNS
KEEMONT LOUIS OATES
PLAINTIFF
v.
MATT MUTTER et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Keemont Louis Oates, 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 September 25, 2014. On October 27,
2014, that mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender,
Not Deliverable as Addressed, 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:
December 19, 2014
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4416.010
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?