Jones v. Bolton et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 5/23/2017: Because Plaintiff 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. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
FREDERICK D. JONES
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV-831-JHM
MARK BOLTON et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Frederick D. Jones filed a pro se complaint along with a request to proceed in
forma pauperis. On January 6, 2017, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of Deficiency (DN 4) to
Plaintiff at the Floyd County Jail in Indiana, where he indicated he was incarcerated, directing
him to file a certified copy of his jail trust account statement within 30 days and advising him
that his failure to comply would result in the matter being brought to the attention of the Court.
On January 23, 2017, the copy of the Notice mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court by the
United States Postal Service with the returned envelope marked “Return to Sender,” “Refused,”
and “Unable to Forward” (DN 5). A handwritten notation on the envelope indicated “Not Here.”
In Plaintiff’s complaint, in addition to indicating that he was incarcerated in the Floyd
County Jail, Plaintiff wrote, “My release date is Jan 17, 2017. after this date my address will be
. . . 2104 W. Burnett Street Louisville, Kentucky 40210.” In light of this information, the Clerk
of Court changed Plaintiff’s address of record and, on February 17, 2017, issued a second Notice
of Deficiency (DN 6) to Plaintiff at the Louisville address directing him to file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. Further, the Notice advised Plaintiff that his failure to comply within
30 days would result in the matter being brought to the attention of the Court. The 30-day period
expired without compliance by Plaintiff.
Consequently, by Order entered April 11, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a
Court-supplied, non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis (DN 7). The Court
warned Plaintiff that failure to comply within 30 days from the entry date of the Order would
result in dismissal of this action. The 30-day compliance period has expired without any
response from Plaintiff.
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 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. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed by
separate Order.
Date:
May 23, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.005
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?