Martin v. Gray et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers on 2/4/2019. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. This action will be dismissed by separate Order.cc:counsel; Plaintiff, pro se (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
JOHN WILLIS MARTIN, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-P50-GNS

LYNN GRAY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff John Willis Martin, Jr., who is proceeding pro se, failed to file a response to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (DN 22). Consequently, by Order entered June 25,
2018, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days within which to file a response, provided him with
guidance in responding to a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56, and attached the full text of that Rule (DN 25). Because Plaintiff failed to comply,
the Court entered an Order on December 17, 2018, providing Plaintiff with a final opportunity to
file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and warning Plaintiff that his
failure to file a response within 30 days from entry of the Order would result in dismissal of the
action for failure to prosecute (DN 26). The 30-day period has expired without any response by
Plaintiff.
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 a straightforward Order of this Court, despite
being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, this action will be dismissed by
separate Order.
Date:

February 4, 2019

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4416.005

2