Crawford v. Bolton et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 6/15/2018. The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. cc: Counsel (MEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
JAMAL RASHAD CRAWFORD
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV-P673-CRS

MARK BOLTON et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Jamal Rashad Crawford filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
indicating therein that he is a convicted prisoner at the Louisville Metro Department of
Corrections (LMDC). Review of the Court’s records revealed that mail sent to Plaintiff at the
LMDC in another of his cases was returned to the Court on February 22, 2018, by the U.S. Postal
Service as undeliverable. See Crawford v. Bolton et al., 3:17CV-P535-DJH (DN 8, returned
envelope marked “Return To Sender, Attempted – Not Known, Unable To Forward” and
stamped “Return to Sender, Inmate Not in Custody”). Out of an abundance of caution that the
prior mailing was not returned to the Court in error, however, before dismissing the instant
action for failure to prosecute, the Court, by Order entered April 27, 2018, directed the Clerk of
Court to mail a copy of the Order to Plaintiff at LMDC and advised, in part, that should the
Order be returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service, the Court would dismiss the action for
failure to prosecute (DN 6). The record reveals that on June 4, 2018, the copy of the April 27,
2018, Order sent to Plaintiff at the LMDC was returned to the Court with the envelope marked
“Return To Sender – Inmate Not In Custody” and “Return To Sender, Not Deliverable As
Addressed, Unable To Forward” (DN 7).

Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court
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.”). Plaintiff
apparently is no longer housed at his address of record, and he has not advised the Court of a
change of address. Therefore, neither notices 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
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)).
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.
2

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.
Date:

June 15, 2018

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4411.005

3