Lester v. Anderson

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 10/23/12; The Plaintiff has failed to comply with an Order of this Court. The Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. By separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendant (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
LEONARD LESTER
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV-P112-S

DR. ANDERSON

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered August 31, 2012, the Court directed Plaintiff to file his action on a
Court-approved 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form; either pay the $350.00 filing fee in full or file
a fully completed application to proceed without prepayment of fees along with a certified copy
of his prison trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of
the action; and complete a summons form for each defendant. The Court warned Plaintiff that
his failure to comply with the Order within 30 days would result in dismissal of this civil action.
The 30 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 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:

October 23, 2012

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4411.005

2