Mays v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al

Filing 116

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Justin R. Walker on 12/16/2019; 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. The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel (CDF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
PAUL HARRISON MAYS, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-290-JRW

KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff Paul Harrison Mays, Jr., assumed the
responsibility of keeping this Court1 advised of his current address and of actively litigating 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.”).
On September 18, 2019, the copy of an Order sent to Plaintiff was returned to the Court
by the U.S. Postal Service with a label on the envelope indicating “Return To Sender, Not
Deliverable As Addressed, Unable to Forward” and a typewritten notation indicating “Return to
Sender, No Longer Living At This Address” (DN 113). Plaintiff apparently no longer is housed
at his address of record, and he has not advised the Court of a change of address. Therefore,
neither orders from this Court nor filings by Defendants in this action can be served on 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

1

This case was originally assigned to the Honorable Senior District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., and was
reassigned to the undersigned on November 1, 2019, pursuant to General Order No. 2019-10 (DN 114).

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)).
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 of dismissal.

December 16, 2019

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
B117.005

2