Miracle v. Smith et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 4/26/2017: The motions to dismiss (DNs 20 & 22 ) are GRANTED. The Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this action. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
DENNIS MIRACLE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-P346-JHM

AARON SMITH et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon motions by Defendant Warden Aaron Smith
(DN 20) and Defendant Dr. Thad Manning (DN 22) to dismiss this action because Plaintiff
Dennis Miracle has failed to notify the Clerk of Court and opposing parties of his change of
address. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss will be granted.
Plaintiff initiated this pro se prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June
7, 2016. He then filed an amended complaint on October 27, 2016 (DN 7); a motion for leave to
amend his complaint on December 7, 2016 (DN 12); and a request for the production of
documents on January 9, 2017 (DN 17).
Defendant Smith filed his motion to dismiss on February 9, 2017. In support of his
motion, Defendant Smith attaches exhibits which show that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at
Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), which is his address of record in this case. The first exhibit
shows that a mailing Defendant Smith sent to Plaintiff at KSR in January 2017 was returned to
sender as “Unable to Forward.” (DN 20-1, Exh. 1). The second exhibit shows that Plaintiff was
discharged from KSR on January 6, 2017. (DN 20-2, Exh. 2). Defendant Smith has also filed a
Notice of Returned Mail which shows that he attempted to send Plaintiff mail to the address
listed on the Notice of Discharge but that this was returned as well and marked “Return to
Sender, Attempted – Not Known, Unable to Forward” (DN 24-1, Exh. 1). In his motion, which
was filed on February 17, 2017, Defendant Manning also argues for dismissal of this action

based upon Plaintiff’s failure to update his address. Plaintiff has not responded to either
Defendant’s motion, and the time for filing a response has now passed. Moreover, it has now
been over three months since the Notice of Discharge indicates Plaintiff was released from KSR.
In the Scheduling Order entered on November 29, 2016, the Court advised Plaintiff that
“[s]hould [he] change addresses during the pendency of this matter, he must provide written
notice of a change of address to the Clerk of Court and to Defendants’ counsel. See LR 5.2(e).”
(DN 11, Scheduling Order and Order Regarding Service). This Order also warned Plaintiff that
his failure to “notify the Clerk of Court of any address change” may result in dismissal of this
case.
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. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules and
its Scheduling Order by failing to provide written notice of a change of address, the Court
concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See, e.g., White v. City of
Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[Plaintiff’s] complaint was subject to
dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprised of his
current address.”); Hananiah v. Shelby Cty. Gov’t, No. 12-3074-JDT-TMP, 2017 U.S. Dist.

2

LEXIS 15392, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2015) (“Without such basic information as a plaintiff’s
current address, courts have no recourse but to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute.”).
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (DNs 20 &
22) are GRANTED. The Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this action.
Date:

April 26, 2017

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4414.010

3