Gonzalez v. Salvation Army et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers; The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order for lack of prosecution. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
DONNA CRAWFORD GONZALEZ
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15CV-730-GNS

SALVATION ARMY et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Donna Crawford Gonzalez initiated this pro se civil action. Upon filing the
instant action, Plaintiff was obligated to provide the Court with her current address. See
LR 5.1(a) (“All pleadings, motions and other papers must include the name, address, and
telephone number of . . . the filing party.”). Likewise, she assumed the responsibility of keeping
this Court advised of her current address and to actively litigate her claims. See LR 5.2(d) (“All
pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of 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.”).
The Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on October 15, 2015. The mailing was
returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, Insufficient Address,
Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff either failed to provide the Clerk’s Office with her correct address
or she is no longer living at her address of record and has not advised the Court of a change of
address. In any event, neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants in this action can
be served on Plaintiff.
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. “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 comply with this Court’s Local Rules by failing to provide
her current address, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:

December 3, 2015

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4416.010

2