Thornsberry v. Kuchenbrod et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 7/18/2017 - The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.cc: Defendants, Plaintiff-pro se (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
MARCUS ALEXANDER THORNSBURY,
v.
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-P146-DJH
SRGT. KUCHENBROD et al.,
Defendants.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Marcus Alexander Thornsbury filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Docket Number (DN) 1). By Order entered March 15, 2017 (DN 5), the Court granted
Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees. On March 24, 2017, the copy of
the Order mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service with
the returned envelope marked “Return to Sender Inmate Not In Custody” and “Not Deliverable
As Addressed Unable to Forward” (DN 6).
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)). In addition,
under the Court’s local rules, all pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of address
to the Clerk, and “[f]ailure to notify the Clerk of an address change may result in the dismissal of
the litigant’s case or other appropriate sanctions.” LR 5.2(e).
Review of the docket sheet reveals that months have passed without Plaintiff providing
any notice of an address change. Consequently, neither orders from this Court nor filings by
Defendants 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:
July 18, 2017
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4415.005
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?