Stephens v. Smith
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 9/29/2016; Because Petitioner has failed to comply with straightforward Orders of this Court (DNs 5 & 6 ) or take any action in response to the Court's Orders, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Petitioner, pro se; Respondent (CDR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
DONNIE R. STEPHENS
v.
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-P106-GNS
AARON SMITH, WARDEN
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 24, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (DN 1). He also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of
fees (DN 3). By Order entered August 3, 2016 (DN 5), this Court denied Petitioner’s motion for
leave to procced without prepayment of fees and ordered him to tender the $5.00 filing fee to the
Clerk of Court within 30 days from the date of entry of the Order. The Order warned Petitioner
that failure to comply with the Order within the time allowed would result in dismissal of this
action. Also on August 3, 2016, this Court entered an Order (DN 6) ordering Petitioner to file
within 30 days of entry of the Order redacted copies of certain attachments and exhibits that he
filed with his § 2241 petition. Over 30 days have passed since the entry of these Orders, and
Petitioner has not complied with the Orders or taken any action on the Orders.
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. 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.”). 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. Id. at 110. “As this court has noted, the lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se
litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily
understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than
a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d at 110). “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)).
Because Petitioner has failed to comply with straightforward Orders of this Court
(DNs 5 & 6) or take any action in response to the Court’s Orders, the Court concludes that he has
abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action by
separate Order.
Date:
September 29, 2016
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Petitioner, pro se
Respondent
4415.003
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?