THORNTON v. 46TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUDGES et al
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 7/15/13; The Court concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action and will dismiss this action by separate Order.cc:counsel, Plaintiff-pro se (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
RICHARD B. THORNTON
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV-502-S
STATE OF KENTUCKY et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Richard B. Thornton filed a pro se civil-rights action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (DN 1). Because Plaintiff sued Breckinridge
County, Kentucky state court judges, sheriff, county attorney, circuit court clerk’s office
employee, and a private attorney doing business in Kentucky, the Southern District of Indiana
concluded that venue is proper in the Western District of Kentucky and transferred the action to
this Court (DN 5).
Despite transfer of the action to this Court, Plaintiff filed a “Memorandum” in March
2013 in the closed Southern District of Indiana case declaring, “I refuse to submit to the WD
KY” (DN 16).1 By Order entered April 30, 2013, the Honorable District Judge John G. Heyburn
II recused himself from this matter, and the case was reassigned to the undersigned for all further
proceedings (DN 17). The copy of that Order sent to Plaintiff was returned by the U.S. Postal
Service on May 31, 2013, with the envelope marked “Refused” and “Unable to Forward”
(DN 19). By Order entered June 7, 2013, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why this
action should not be dismissed for his refusal of the Court’s April 30, 2013, Order (DN 20). The
Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond within 21 days and/or his refusal to accept the
Court’s Order would result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
1
The Southern District of Indiana transferred the “Memorandum” to this Court for filing.
of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. Review of the record reveals that on July 8, 2013, the
Court’s Order to show cause was returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service with the
envelope marked “Refused” (DN 23).
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.”). “The factors to consider before
imposing such a dismissal are whether: 1) the failure to cooperate with the court’s orders was
wilful or in bad faith; 2) the opposing party suffered any prejudice; 3) the party was warned that
dismissal was contemplated; and 4) less severe sanctions were imposed or considered.” Palasty
v. Hawk, 15 F. App’x 197, 199 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d
359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff’s blatant failure to participate in this action and his intentional refusal of Orders
from this Court prevent adjudication of this matter, and this inaction prejudices Defendants. The
Court attempted to warn Plaintiff that dismissal of his action was contemplated, but his
continued refusal of Orders from this Court prevented him from receiving such notice. Finally,
due to Plaintiff’s failure to subject himself to this Court, no less severe sanctions can be imposed.
The Court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting
this action and will dismiss this action by separate Order.
Date:
cc:
July 15, 2013
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4411.005
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
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?