Powell v. Harrington et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. The Court will dismiss the case by separate Order as abandoned. cc:Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO

CHARLES LOUIS POWELL, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14CV-P107-JHM
DEFENDANTS

RON HARRINGTON et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Charles Louis Powell, Jr., a pro se prisoner, initiated this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Upon filing the instant action, he 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.”).
The Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on October 27, 2014. On November 25,
2014, that mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender,
Attempted – Not Known, Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff apparently is no longer housed at his
address of record, and he has not advised the Court of a change of address. Therefore, neither
notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants can be served on Plaintiff. 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). Furthermore, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) permits
the Court to dismiss the action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules

or a court order.” Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in
prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order.
Date:

January 6, 2015

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4414.010

2