Balcar et al v. Kentucky State Reformatory et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 8/9/2018: This action will be dismissed by separate order. cc:counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
YALE LARRY BALCAR et al.
v.

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

KENTUCKY STATE REFORMATORY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered June 29, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff Yale Larry Balcar,1 a
recently released prisoner, either to pay the full $175.00 balance of the filing fee to the Clerk of
Court or to file a non-prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees (DN 28). The
Court warned Plaintiff Balcar that failure to comply within 30 days from entry of that Order
would result in dismissal of this action. The 30-day period has expired without compliance by
Plaintiff Balcar.
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

1

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered July 12, 2018, co-Plaintiff Carl J. Perry, Jr., was dismissed
from this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute (DN 29).

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 Balcar failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court,
despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff Balcar has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.
Therefore, this action will be dismissed by separate Order.
Date:

cc:

August 9, 2018

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4411.005

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

2