Balcar et al v. Kentucky State Reformatory et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 7/11/2018 - Plaintiff Perry is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Plaintiff Perry from this action.cc: Counsel, Plaintiff Balcar-pro se, Plaintiff Perry-pro se (DAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION

YALE LARRY BALCAR et al.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV-P665-CRS

KENTUCKY STATE REFORMATORY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Order entered March 12, 2018 (DN 24), the Court directed Plaintiff Carl J. Perry, Jr.,
pro se, to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss (DN 21) or face dismissal. Plaintiff
Perry sought an extension of time in which to file a response (DN 25). By Order entered
May 10, 2018 (DN 27), the Court granted Plaintiff Perry’s motion for extension; directed him to
file his response on or before June 11, 2018; and warned him that his failure to respond to the
motion to dismiss within the time allowed would result in his dismissal from this action for
failure to comply with an order of this Court and for failure to prosecute. Review of the record
reveals that Plaintiff Perry has failed to respond.
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).
Because Plaintiff Perry failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court,
despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that
he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Consequently,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Perry is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Plaintiff Perry from this action.
Date:

July 11, 2018

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
cc:

Plaintiff Balcar, pro se
Plaintiff Perry, pro se
Counsel of Record
4411.005

2