v. Howell et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 7/5/12; It appearing that Plaintiff Howell has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will DISMISS the case by separate order.cc:Plaintiff (pro se), Defendant (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12CV-P78-M
FRANKLIN L. HOWELL II
PLAINTIFF
v.
DAVIESS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Franklin L. Howell II initiated this pro se civil action jointly with another
Plaintiff, Civil Action Number 4:12CV-19-M. The Court ordered the claims to be severed
because they were not properly joined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). The Court further directed
the Clerk of Court to open the instant, separate civil action identifying Plaintiff Howell as the
plaintiff and docketing the complaint and all documents related to Plaintiff Howell in the instant
action.
On March 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff Howell’s application to
proceed without the prepayment of fees in the jointly filed action, and the Clerk of Court sent a
mailing of the Order to him. On March 16, 2012, that mailing was returned by the United States
Postal Service marked “Return to Sender” and stating “Released.” Plaintiff Howell has not
advised the Court of a change of address.
Upon filing a civil action, Plaintiff Howell assumed the responsibility of keeping this
Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his 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.”). Since Plaintiff
Howell has not advised the Court of his new address, neither notices from this Court nor filings
by Defendant in this action 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 Howell has abandoned any interest in
prosecution of his case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order.
Date:
July 5, 2012
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4414.010
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?