Lyvers v. Newkirk et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers. Plaintiff having failed to file a notice of change of address, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case, and the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
ERIC TODD LYVERS

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV-P96-GNS

JAMES NEWKIRK et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, assumed the
responsibility to keep this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims.
See Local Rule 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.”).
By Order entered November 16, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed
without prepayment of fees, allowing him to pay the filing fee in installments (DN 7). On
December 11, 2015, the United States Postal Service returned Plaintiff’s copy of that Order (DN 8)
to the Court with the returned envelope marked “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward.”
A handwritten notation indicates “RTS No Longer here.” Over a month has passed without
Plaintiff providing any notice of an address change. Therefore, neither orders from this Court nor
filings by Defendants can be served on him.
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.”). “Further, the United States Supreme

Court has recognized that courts have an inherent power to manage their own affairs and may
dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Lyons-Bey v. Pennell, 93 F. App’x 732, 733
(6th Cir. 2004) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)).
Plaintiff having failed to file a notice of change of address, the Court concludes that he
has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case, and the Court will dismiss the action by
separate Order.
Date:

January 27, 2016

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4416.005

2