Johnson et al v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co.

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 11/27/2012; because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecutionof this case, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims by separate Order.cc: plaintiff pro se, defendant (TLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

PONELL JOHNSON

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV-276-S

LOUISVILLE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Ponell Johnson initiated this civil action. Upon filing the instant action, he
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.”). After a mailing sent by the Court to Plaintiff was returned by the U.S.
Postal Service marked “Return to Sender; Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward,”
the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for abandonment.
Approximately one month later, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff which
contained a new address. The Court interpreted that letter to be a motion to reopen, which the
Court granted.
However, on October 26, 2012, that mailing was returned marked: “Return to Sender.”
Plaintiff has not advised the Court of another change of address, and neither notices from
this Court nor filings by Defendant 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 Plaintiff’s claims by separate Order.
Date:

November 27, 2012

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4411.009

2