Slaughter v. Myers et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 8/6/2019: The Court will dismiss this action by separate order for failure to comply. cc: Plaintiff (pro se) (JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
RICHARD SLAUGHTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-P355-DJH
WILLIAM MYERS et al.,
Defendants.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Richard Slaughter initiated this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By prior Order,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the Court-approved complaint form
and prepare a summons to be served upon each Defendant within 30 days (Docket No. 5). The
Order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply within the time allotted would result in dismissal of
the action.
More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order
or to otherwise take any action in this case. Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the
responsibility to actively litigate his claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the
Court to dismiss the action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a
court order.” 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. See Jourdan v. Jabe,
951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). “[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) (citing Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 110). 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).
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s prior
Order shows a failure to pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss
the instant action.
Date:
August 6, 2019
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4415.010
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?