Young v. Humphrey

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 2/3/2017: This action will be dismissed by separate order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
MICHAEL LENEAR YOUNG SR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14CV-131-JHM

LEAH HUMPHREY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Michael Lenear Young Sr. filed the instant pro se complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated. Because Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address
indicating his release from incarceration (DN 40), the Court, by Order entered December 14,
2016 (DN 45), directed Plaintiff either to: 1) pay the entire $243.89 balance of the $350.00 filing
fee to the Clerk of Court; or 2) file a non-prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of
fees. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply within 30 days from entry of that
Order would result in dismissal of this action. The 30-day compliance period has expired
without any response from Plaintiff.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal
of an action if a plaintiff 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.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled
to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal
training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements
that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[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). Additionally,
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 Plaintiff failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, despite
being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that he has
abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by
separate Order.
Date:

February 3, 2017

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4414.005

2