Branham v. Bolton et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale stating that because Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case, and the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (RR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
BRYAN ANTHONY BRANHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-P108-DJH

MARK BOLTON et al.,

Defendants.
*****
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, assumed the
responsibility to keep this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims.
See Local Rule 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.”)
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on February 19, 2016. On that same day, Plaintiff
filed two applications to proceed without prepayment of fees (DNs 3 & 5). By Order of the Court
entered on February 26, 2016 (DN 7), the first application was granted, and the second application
was denied as moot. On March 14, 2016, this Order was returned to the Court with the envelope
marked: “Return to Sender, Attempted – Not Known, Unable to Forward.” A handwritten
notation on the envelope states: “RTS. NOT HERE.” Over one month has passed without
Plaintiff providing any notice of an address change.
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.”) “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 file a notice of change of address, the Court concludes that
he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case, and the Court will dismiss the action by
separate Order.
Date:

May 13, 2016

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

Plaintiff, pro se

4415.011

2