Prather v. Corrections Care Solutions et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 1/18/17: Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's Local Rules by failing to provide written notice of his current address, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.cc: Counsel, Plaintiff(pro se) (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
JAMES ARCHIE PRATHER, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-P60-JHM

CORRECTIONS CARE SOLUTIONS et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff James Archie Prather, Jr., initiated this pro se prisoner civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Upon filing the instant action, he assumed the responsibility of keeping this
Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(e) (“All pro
se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential 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 mailings to Plaintiff on November 4, 2016, and December 7,
2016 (DNs 14 &17). These mailings were returned by the United States Postal Service marked
“Return to Sender . . . Unable to Forward” (DNs 16 &18). Plaintiff apparently is no longer
housed at his address of record, and he has not advised the Court of a change of address.
Therefore, 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 [the Sixth Circuit] 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
written notice of his 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:

cc:

January 18, 2017

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4414.011