Rickard v. Hopkins County Jail
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 4/27/12; The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. cc:counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), HCA (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
TERRY RICKARD
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12CV-P13-M
HOPKINS COUNTY JAIL
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See Local Rule 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.”).
On January 20, 2012, the Clerk of Court issued a deficiency notice to Plaintiff directing
him to complete a complaint form, to either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed
without prepayment of fees, and to submit a completed summons form for each Defendant. The
deficiency notice advised Plaintiff that failure to comply within 30 days, without good cause
shown, would result in the matter being brought to the attention of the Court. Because Plaintiff
failed to comply, the Court entered an Order on March 12, 2012, directing Plaintiff to show
cause for his failure to comply or, in the alternative, to comply. On March 19, 2012, the U.S.
Postal Service returned the Order to the Court. The envelope was marked “Return to Sender,
Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.”
Apparently, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Hopkins County Jail, and because he
has not provided any forwarding address to the Court, neither notices from this Court nor filings
by Defendants can be served on him. 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).
Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting
this case, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:
April 27, 2012
cc: Plaintiff, pro se
Hopkins County Attorney
4414.005
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?