Hill v. Parnell et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers that 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; counsel of record (SG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
JAMES BRIAN HILL
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-P147-GNS
RICKY PARNELL et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff 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 Court sent an Order to Plaintiff on March 12, 2015. That mailing was returned to the
Court by the U.S. Postal Service marked “Return to Sender; Refused; Unable to Forward.”
Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his new address, and 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:
May 26, 2015
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4416.009
cc:
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?