Mullins v. Smith et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 4/18/19: The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Plaintiff(pro se), Counsel (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

JESSIE MULLINS
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV-P128-JHM

AARON SMITH et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Jessie Mullins initiated this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Court entered a
Memorandum and Order in this action on February 19, 2019. The mailing was sent to Plaintiff
at his address of record, as well as an address provided by Defendants. However, both mailings
were returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender” (DNs 27 and 28).
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(e) (“All pro se
litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential 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.”). 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.”). 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.
“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)).
Plaintiff apparently no longer resides at the address he provided to the Court, and he has
not advised the Court of a current address. Therefore, neither notices from this Court nor filings
by Defendants in this action can be served on Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply
with this Court’s Local Rules by failing to provide written notice of a change of address, the
Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 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.”).
The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:

April 18, 2019

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4414.010

2