Harper v. Conrad et al
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 11/14/2016: The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
DELBERT MONROE HARPER
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14CV-P523-JHM
v.
STEVE CONRAD, CHIEF LMPD et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1). On October 10, 2014,
the Court performed initial review of the complaint and allowed some claims to proceed and
dismissed other claims (DN 6). Subsequently, Defendant Conrad filed a motion to stay this civil
action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal case. The motion was granted, and the case
stayed by Memorandum and Order entered December 16, 2014 (DN 15). On August 15, 2016,
the Court entered an Order granting attorney Stephanie French’s motion to withdraw as counsel
for Defendant Conrad (DN 19). The copy of that Order sent to Plaintiff was returned to the
Court marked “Return To Sender, Refused, Unable To Forward” and “Return To Sender, Inmate
Not In Custody” (DN 21). On September 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order ordering Plaintiff
to advise the Court in writing as to the status of the criminal charges against him (DN 22). The
Order gave Plaintiff 30 days to comply and specifically warned Plaintiff that failure to comply
with the Order within the time allotted would result in dismissal of this action. That Order was
also returned to the Court; it was marked “Return To Sender, Attempted-Not Known, Unable To
Forward” (DN 23).
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See Local Rule 5.2(e) (“All pro
se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential address, and, if different,
mailing address, to the Clerk and to the opposing party or the opposing party’s counsel. Failure
to notify the Clerk of an address change may result in the dismissal of the litigant’s case or other
appropriate sanctions.”). Because Plaintiff has not provided any notice of an address change to
the Court, neither orders or notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants can be served on
him.
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.”). 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. Id. at 110. “As this court has noted, the lenient treatment generally accorded to 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 v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d at 110). “Further, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that courts
have an inherent power to manage their own affairs and may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack
of prosecution.” Lyons-Bey v. Pennell, 93 F. App’x 732, 733 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)).
Because Plaintiff has failed to provide an updated address to the Court and two Orders
sent to Plaintiff by this Court have been returned, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to
2
comply with Local Rule 5.2(e) and has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:
November 14, 2016
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel for Defendant Conrad
Defendants Whitford and Moore
4414.003
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?