Davis v. Richter et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 3/21/2017; separate order shall enter consistent with memorandum opinion.cc: plaintiff pro se (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
ROBERT ALAN DAVIS

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV-5-TBR

BOB RICHTER et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff Robert Alan Davis filed a pro se complaint (DN 1) and paid
the $400.00 filing fee. On the next day, January 5, 2016, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of
Summons (DN 3) advising Plaintiff that no summonses were tendered with his complaint,
sending him fourteen summons forms, and instructing him to complete a summons form for each
Defendant and return them to the Clerk’s Office. Plaintiff did not complete and return a
summons form for each Defendant. In fact, a review of the record reveals that he took no action
in this suit since filing the complaint. Due to this inaction, the Court entered a Text Order
(DN 4) on February 3, 2017, directing Plaintiff to file a status report on or before March 3, 2017,
to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The compliance
time has passed without any response 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).
Plaintiff having failed to take any action in this matter for over a year and having failed to
comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned
any interest in prosecuting this action. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by separate
Order.
Date:

March 21, 2017

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4416.005

2