Clayton v. Templeman et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale. Plaintiff has failed to comply with LR 5.2(e). Court will dismiss action by separate order. cc: counsel, plaintiff pro se (JAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
DEMETRIUS MAURICE CLAYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-P509-DJH

CPL. CHARLES M. TEMPLEMAN et al.,

Defendants.
* * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (DN 1). Plaintiff did not pay
the filing fee for this action, but instead filed a prisoner application to proceed without
prepayment of fees (DN 3). However, Plaintiff failed to file his prison trust account statement
along with his prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees as required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Therefore, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a Notice of Deficiency
(DN 4). The Notice of Deficiency was returned to the Court marked “Return To Sender,
Attempted-Not Known, Unable To Forward” (DN 5).
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See Local Rule 5.2(e) (“All pro
se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential address, and, if different,
mailing 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.”). Because Plaintiff has not provided any notice of an address change to
the Court, neither orders or notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants can be served on
him.

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. 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 this court 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 provide an updated address to the Court and a notice sent
to Plaintiff by this Court has been returned, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to
comply with Local Rule 5.2(e) and has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:

September 14, 2016

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

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4415.003

2