Westine v. USA
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. Because it appears to this Court that Petitioner has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice by separate Order. cc: Petitioner, pro se; U.S. Attorney (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
JOHN G. WESTINE
PETITIONER
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14CV-P103-JHM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner John G. Westine filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 while incarcerated at the Grayson County Detention Center (GCDC). By Order
entered October 30, 2014, the Court directed Petitioner to file his petition and his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis on court-supplied forms (DN 7). On November 7, 2014, the copy of
the Order sent to Petitioner was returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service marked “Return
to Sender-Refused-Unable to Forward-Return to Sender” (DN 8). A handwritten notation on the
envelope indicates, “Not Here Rel 10-14-14.” The Bureau of Prison’s website indicates that
Petitioner is “Not in BOP Custody.” See www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. Over two months have
passed since Petitioner’s apparent release from GCDC’s custody, and he has failed to notify this
Court of a change in address.
Upon filing the instant action, Petitioner 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.”). Because Petitioner
has not provided any notice of an address change to the Court, neither orders or notices from this
Court nor filings by Respondent can be served on him.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal
of an action if a petitioner fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the
district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). “Further, the United States Supreme
Court has recognized that courts have an inherent power to manage their own affairs and may
dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Lyons-Bey v. Pennell, 93 F. App’x 732, 733
(6th Cir. 2004) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)).
Because it appears to this Court that Petitioner has abandoned any interest in prosecuting
this case, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice by separate Order.
Date:
December 18, 2014
cc:
Petitioner, pro se
U.S. 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?