Humphrey v. Hardin County Detention Center et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 4/11/2017; The Court concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case and that dismissal is warranted. The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (CDR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER LEE HUMPHREY
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV-P75-GNS

HARDIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Christopher Lee Humphrey filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. On February 7, 2017, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of Deficiency (DN 4) to
Plaintiff directing him to file a certified copy of his jail trust account statement within 30 days.
On February 22, 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,” “Attempted
– Not Known,” and “Unable to Forward” (DN 5).
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.”). “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)).
Review of the docket sheet reveals that over a month has passed without Plaintiff
providing any notice of an address change. Consequently, neither orders from this Court nor
filings by Defendant can be served on him. The Court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff has
abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case and that dismissal is warranted. 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, 2015 WL
52089, at *3 (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.”).
The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:

April 11, 2017

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4416.005

2