Dorris v. Smith
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale. Because Dorris failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss this action. cc: Petitioner, pro se; Respondent (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CHARLIE DORRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-P110-DJH
WARDEN AARON SMITH,
Respondent.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Charlie Dorris, a pro se prisoner at the Kentucky State Reformatory, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on his own paper (DN 1).
Because Dorris failed to file his petition on a form and either pay the $5.00 filing fee or
file an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, the Clerk of Court issued a notice of
deficiency directing him to cure the deficiencies (DN 3). In response, Dorris filed another
§ 2241 petition on his own paper (DN 4), not on the form. He also failed either to pay the filing
fee or to file an application to proceed without prepayment of fees.
Consequently, by Order entered April 16, 2015, the Court gave Dorris another
opportunity to comply (DN 5). The Court warned Dorris that his failure to comply with any part
of the Order within 30 days would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and for
failure to comply with an Order of this Court. The compliance period has expired, and Dorris
has failed to comply or show cause for said failure.
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.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled
to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal
training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements
that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[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). Additionally,
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).
Because Dorris failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, the Court
concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, by separate
Order, the Court will dismiss this action.
Date:
June 1, 2015
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Petitioner, pro se
Respondent
4415.005
2
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?