Ferguson v. Louisville Metro Corrections
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 4/12/12; Plaintiff failed to comply with the Clerks directive and with an Order of thisCourt, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.cc:counsel, plaintiff, pro se (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
JAMES CALVIN RODGERS FERGUSON
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV-P721-H
LOUISVILLE METRO CORRECTIONS
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 4, 2012, the Clerk of Court issued a deficiency notice to Plaintiff directing
him to complete a complaint form, an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, and a
summons form for each defendant. The deficiency notice advised Plaintiff that failure to comply
within 30 days, without good cause shown, would result in this matter being brought to the
attention of the Court. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply, the Court, on March 1, 2012, ordered
Plaintiff to show cause why the instant action should not be dismissed for his noncompliance or,
alternatively, to cure each deficiency. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with
the Order within 21 days would result in dismissal of this civil action. The 21 days have passed
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.”). Additionally, courts have 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). 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, 951 F.2d at 110.
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Clerk’s directive and with an Order of this
Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.
Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.
Date:
April 12, 2012
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Jefferson County Attorney
4412.005
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?