Ferguson v. Clark et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III; The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. cc:Plaintiff(pro se);Defendants (ERH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
JAMES CALVIN RODGERS FERGUSON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV-69-S
OFFICER CHRISTOPHER CLARK et al.
Plaintiff initiated this pro se civil action alleging “[r]obbery/wrongful
injailment/violation of Human Rights” as grounds for filing this case in federal court and stating
that he had twice been robbed and arrested for trespassing on his own property by the Defendant
police officer. The Court construed the claim as a false-arrest claim. Finding that it might be
necessary to stay the action pursuant to Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007), the Court
entered an Order on June 27, 2013, ordering Plaintiff to advise the Court in writing as to the
status of the criminal charges against him. That Order stated, “Plaintiff is WARNED that his
failure to comply with this Order within 30 days will result in dismissal of this action.”
More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Order or taken 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) authorizes dismissal of an
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 court-imposed 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, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order shows a failure to
pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.
August 6, 2013
C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
Plaintiff, pro se
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?