Crawford et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 6/28/13. For reasons set forth because Petitioners failed to comply with the Ct's Order (DN 4), the Ct concludes that they have abonded any interet in prosecuting this action. By separate Order, the Ct will dismiss the instant action.cc:counsel, Petitioner lawrence Crawfor, Pro Se (Mailed 7/1/13) (SJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
LAWRENCE L. CRAWFORD et al.
v.

PETITIONERS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV-P434-H

UNNAMED

RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lawrence L. Crawford, Anthony Cook, Aerialle T. Crawford, and Quinta D. Lee, all filed
a document with this Court which they captioned “Affidavit of Facts and or Motion Seeking
Writ of Mandamus; Motion For Declaratory Judgment” (DN 1). Petitioner Lawrence Crawford
was the only Petitioner to provide an address to the Court. On May 15, 2013, the Court entered
an Order directing Petitioners to correct numerous defects in this action (DN 4). Petitioners were
given 30 days from the date of the Order to remedy the deficiencies. The 30 days have passed,
and Petitioners have not remedied the deficiencies or otherwise responded to the Order.
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. 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 for failure to comply with court deadlines and other procedures

readily understood by laypersons, particularly where there is a pattern of delay or failure to
pursue a case. Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d at 110.
Because Petitioners failed to comply with the Court’s Order (DN 4), the Court concludes
that they have abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.
Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.
Date:

June 28, 2013

cc:
Petitioner Lawrence Crawford, pro se
4412.003

2