Price v. Unknown U.S. Marshal et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 4/11/2017; Because Plaintiff failed to comply with straightforward Orders of this Court, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (CDR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
ALLEN PRICE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV-199-GNS

UNKNOWN U.S. MARSHAL et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered December 15, 2016 (DN 5), the Court directed Plaintiff to file a fully
completed non-prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court warned
Plaintiff that failure to file a fully completed application within 30 days from the entry date of
the Order would result in dismissal of the action for failure to comply with an Order of this Court
and for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff failed to comply.
On February 21, 2017, however, Plaintiff called the Clerk’s Office and advised that he
was in the hospital and had not complied with the Court’s Order and that he would pay the filing
fee on the following day. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in the time asserted.
Consequently, by Order entered March 6, 2017, the Court provided Plaintiff with one
final opportunity either to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full or to file a fully completed nonprisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court warned Plaintiff that his
failure to comply with the Order within 21 days from the entry date of the Order would result in
dismissal of this action for failure to comply with an order of this Court and for failure to
prosecute. Over 21 days have passed, and a review of the docket sheet reveals that there has
been no compliance with the Court’s Order.

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.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled
to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal
training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements
that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[T]he lenient treatment of 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). Additionally,
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 Plaintiff failed to comply with straightforward Orders of this Court, despite
being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that he has
abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by
separate Order.
Date:

April 11, 2017

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

2