Browder v. Conduent Payment Integrity Solutions et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 7/24/2017; Plaintiff having failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by separate Order.cc:Pro-Se Pla., Dfts. (ARM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
JOE A. BROWDER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-252-DJH
CONDUENT PAYMENT INTEGRITY
SOLUTIONS et al.,
Defendants.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Joe A. Browder, Jr., filed a pro se complaint (Docket Number (DN) 1) on
April 21, 2017. Subsequently, the Court was advised that Plaintiff called the Clerk’s Office on
April 26, 2017, and reported that he would be filing paperwork to withdraw this matter because
he had been told that the lien in question was going to be removed and that he would be
receiving his money. Because Plaintiff thereafter did not file a motion to withdraw, the Court
entered an Order (DN 6) on June 7, 2017, directing Plaintiff to notify the Court in writing
whether he wants to voluntarily dismiss the instant action or continue with it. The Court warned
Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Order within 21 days from its entry would result in
dismissal of the action. The compliance time has passed without any action by 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).
Plaintiff having failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, the Court
concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Consequently, this
action will be dismissed by separate Order.
Date:
July 24, 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?