Balcar v. Smith et al

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 8/22/2018. Plaintiff failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Counsel, Pro Se Plaintiff (MEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
YALE LARRY BALCAR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
KENTUCKY STATE REFORMATORY
et al.,

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-1-CHB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendants.
***

***

***

***

By Order entered July 10, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff Yale Larry Balcar, a recently
released prisoner, either to pay the full $350.00 balance of the filing fee to the Clerk of Court or
to file a non-prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees. [R. 100] The Court
warned plaintiff that failure to comply within 30 days from entry of that Order would result in
dismissal of this action. See id. The 30-day period has expired without compliance by 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.”). “[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 plaintiff failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, despite
being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that plaintiff
has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.
Therefore, this action will be dismissed by separate Order.

August 22, 2018

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
A958.005

2