Crawford-Gonzalez v. Norton's Hospital Security et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale; Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order shows a failure to pursue her case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
DONNA L. CRAWFORD GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-705-DJH

NORTON’S HOSPITAL SECURITY et al.,

Defendants.

* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Donna L. Crawford Gonzalez filed this pro se action. By prior Order entered
September 30, 2015, this Court addressed Plaintiff’s amended application to proceed without
prepayment of fees. In the amended application, in response to the question of “Have you paid –
or will you be paying – an attorney any money for services in connection with this case,
including the completion of this form,” Plaintiff checked the “Yes” box. Therefore, the Court
ordered that within 30 days Plaintiff advise this Court in writing whether she is represented by
counsel in this case or whether she is proceeding without counsel and directed that, if Plaintiff
was represented, counsel must enter an appearance on her behalf. The Order further stated,
“Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order within the time allotted will result in dismissal of
this action for failure to comply with an Order of this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
(governing involuntary dismissals).”
More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order or
to take any other action in this case. Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the
responsibility to actively litigate her claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the
Court to dismiss the 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, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order
shows a failure to pursue her case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the
instant action.
Date:

November 17, 2015

David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4415.010

2