Demos v. Kentucky Fried Chicken

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 11/29/2011. The Court will dismiss this matter by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (AEP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
JOHN R. DEMOS

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV-438-H

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered October 5, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court then ordered Plaintiff to
pay the $350.00 filing fee within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the
Order would result in dismissal of this action. Over thirty days have passed since entry of the
Court’s Order directing Plaintiff to pay the fee with no response by Plaintiff.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal where the plaintiff fails to
comply with a court order. 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. See Jourdan v. Jabe,
951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). “[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) (citing Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 110).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this matter by separate Order due to Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the Court’s Order of October 5, 2011.
Date: November 29, 2011

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4412.008

2