Shepard v. Tatem et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 3/9/12; Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order to Show Cause shows a faiure to pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss this action.cc:counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), Defendant Tatem, DCA (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
PERCY S. SHEPARD

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10CV-P105-M

DAVIESS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Percy S. Shepard initiated this pro se civil action alleging a number of claims in
connection with his incarceration at the Daviess County Detention Center. After screening the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court allowed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law
negligence claims to go forward against Defendant Nurse Susan Tatem. Finding that Plaintiff
had taken no action in this case since filing the complaint on August 16, 2010, the Court entered
a show-cause order on January 18, 2012, directing Plaintiff to show cause why the instant action
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to
comply with the Order within 30 days would result in dismissal of this action for failure to
prosecute.
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, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause shows a
failure to pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.
Date:

March 9, 2012

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant Tatem
Daviess County Attorney
4414.010

2