McKinney v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 3/20/2019. The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Counsel, Pro Se Plaintiff (MEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT WILLIS MCKINNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-P543-DJH

KENTUCKY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al.,

Defendants.

* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Robert Willis McKinney initiated this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On
January 29, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a response to the motion
to dismiss within 21 days of entry of the Order (Docket No. 27). However, the mailing was
returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service (DN 29).
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.”). The Order
Regarding Service and Scheduling Order warned Plaintiff that failure to notify the Clerk of Court
of any address change may result in dismissal of this case (DN 9). 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 his address of record, 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 and its prior Order 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:

March 20, 2019

David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4415.010

2