Wilson et al v. Osborne

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION signed by Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 6/20/10. Plaintiff Wilson's claims will be dismissed by separate order. (cc: plaintiffs (pro se), counsel) (LAM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT OWENSBORO JAMES E. WILSON et al. v. DAVID OSBORNE MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs James E. Wilson, Jeffrey L. Stevens, and Michael Arthur Satawake, Jr., initiated this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon filing the instant action, they each assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of their current addresses and to actively litigate their claims. See LR 5.2(d) ("All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of 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 Court sent an Order to Plaintiff James E. Wilson April 20, 2010. That mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked "Return to Sender; Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward." Plaintiff Wilson has not advised the Court of a change of address, and neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendant in this action can be served on Plaintiff Wilson. In such situations, 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). PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-CV-P82-M DEFENDANT Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff Wilson has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff Wilson's claims by separate order. Date: June 20, 2010 Plaintiffs, pro se Counsel of record 4414.009 cc: 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?