St. Clair v. Snow et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 06/06/2014. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants; Nelson County Attorney; Marion County Attorney (TJD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV-P640-S
MACK THOMAS ST. CLAIR III
PLAINTIFF
v.
JOHNATHAN SNOW et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Mack Thomas St. Clair III, filed the instant pro se action alleging constitutional
violations stemming from his arrest in 2012. The Court conducted an initial review of the
complaint and amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court dismissed some
claims and stayed his false arrest claim pursuant to Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007).1 After
receiving a letter from Plaintiff indicating that the criminal matter had concluded, the Court
entered a Memorandum and Order directing Plaintiff to provide information concerning the
criminal matter. Plaintiff filed a response. However, based on the facts alleged by Plaintiff, the
Court still did not have sufficient information to determine whether Plaintiff’s guilty plea and
conviction estopped him from maintaining a false arrest claim and therefore subjected his claims
to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
Therefore, on April 18, 2014, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order directing
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days and to specifically state under what
charge(s) he was arrested; specifically state to what charge(s) he pleaded guilty; set forth the
dates of the arrest and conviction; state whether a direct appeal or state collateral proceeding is
1
Under Wallace, “[i]f a plaintiff files . . . any . . . claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a
pending or anticipated criminal trial[], it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common
practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” Id. at 393-94.
pending; and describe how he alleges each Defendant violated his rights. The Memorandum and
Order stated, “Plaintiff is WARNED that failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days
will result in dismissal of the action.”
More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s
Memorandum and Order or to take any other action in this case. Upon filing the instant action,
Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to actively litigate his claims. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) permits the Court to dismiss the action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order.” 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 v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). “[T]he lenient treatment of pro se litigants
has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily understood courtimposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than a represented
litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Jourdan, 951 F.2d at
110). 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).
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
Memorandum and Order shows a failure to pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the
Court will dismiss the instant action.
In addition, in the April 18, 2014, Memorandum and Order, the Court also stayed
Plaintiff’s claims concerning a 2014 arrest pursuant to Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. at 393-94,
2
because the charges stemming from the arrest were still pending. The dismissal of this action
includes all claims brought in this lawsuit, including the claims that were stayed.
Date:
June 6, 2014
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
Nelson County Attorney
Marion County Attorney
4411.010
3
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?