Ra-Bey v. Armstrong et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, dismissing action by separate Order.cc:pro se,defendants (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV-361-S
NU AKK AH RA-BEY

PLAINTIFF

v.
DONALD E. ARMSTRONG et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In light of no action being taken in this case since August 2012, the Court, by Order
entered July 1, 2013, directed Plaintiff to notify the Court in writing whether he wanted to
continue with this case or to dismiss it. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond
within 21 days would result in dismissal of this 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.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action,
and it will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:

August 2, 2013

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4411.005

2