Miracle v. Reivous et al
Filing
57
MEMORADUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 5/16/2017 granting 53 Motion to Dismiss. The Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this action. cc: Counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), TB (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
DENNIS J. MIRACLE
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14CV-P690-JHM
JOHN G. REIVOUS et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon motion by Defendants Reivous, Brady, and Hawkins
to dismiss this action because Plaintiff Dennis Miracle has failed to notify the Clerk of Court and
Defendants’ counsel of his change of address (DN 53). For the following reasons, Defendants’
motion to dismiss will be granted.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on February 13, 2017. In support of their
motion, Defendants attach a Kentucky Department of Corrections Notice of Discharge which
indicates that Plaintiff was discharged from custody on January 6, 2017 (DN 53-1). Plaintiff’s
address of record in this case has not been updated since Plaintiff’s discharge. His address of
record reflects that Plaintiff still is incarcerated at Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR). Plaintiff
failed to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, on March 21, 2017, the Court entered
an Order giving Plaintiff 30 days to respond to Defendants’ motion (DN 54). The Order was
mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record in this case and was also mailed to Plaintiff at the
address listed on the certificate of service attached to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Catholic
Action Center. The document mailed to Plaintiff at KSR was returned to the Court stating,
“Return to Sender, Not Deliverable As Addressed, Unable To Forward” (DN 55). The
document mailed to the Catholic Action Center address was also returned to the Court stating the
same things (DN 56).
The Joint Local Rules of Civil Practice require all pro se litigants to “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.” LR 5.2(e). The Rule further states that
“[f]ailure to notify the Clerk of an address change may result in the dismissal of the litigant’s
case or other appropriate sanctions.” Id. In the Scheduling Orders entered in this case on
May 22, 2015, and June 24, 2015, the Court advised Plaintiff that “[s]hould [he] change
addresses during the pendency of this matter, he must provide written notice of a change of
address to the Clerk of Court and to Defendants, or if represented, to Defendants’ counsel.”
(DNs 15 and 20). These Orders also warned Plaintiff that his failure to “notify the Clerk of
Court or Defendants of any address change” may result in dismissal of this case.
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.”). 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. Review of the docket reveals that no action has been taken by Plaintiff in this
case since October 3, 2016, over seven months ago. Further, an Order entered by the Court has
been returned to the Court as being undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to update his address after
being released from KSR. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide an updated address to the
Court, has not taken any action in this case in over seven months, and an Order sent to Plaintiff
by this Court has been returned, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with
2
Local Rule 5.2(e), has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action, and that dismissal is
warranted. See, e.g., White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2002)
(“[Plaintiff’s] complaint was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to
keep the district court apprised of his current address.”); Hananiah v. Shelby Cty. Gov’t, No. 123074-JDT-TMP, 2015 WL 52089, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2015) (“Without such basic
information as a plaintiff’s current address, courts have no recourse but to dismiss a complaint
for failure to prosecute.”).
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (DN 53) is
GRANTED. The Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this action.
Date:
May 16, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
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?