Boggs v. Elder

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. For the reasons herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case and that dismissal is warranted. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
KIRBY BOGGS
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15CV-P24-JHM

TERRY ELDER, JAILER

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Kirby Boggs filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Order
entered April 11, 2016, the Court performed an initial review of the amended complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and allowed the amended complaint to continue against Jailer Elder,
directed service, and set scheduling deadlines (DN 12). On April 27, 2016, the copy of that
Order mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service with the
returned envelope marked “Return to Sender,” “Addressee no longer here,” and “Unable to
Forward” (DN 15).
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.”). “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)).
Review of the docket sheet reveals that over two months have passed without Plaintiff
providing any notice of an address change. Consequently, neither orders from this Court nor
filings by Defendants can be served on him. The Court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff has

abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case and that dismissal is warranted. See, e.g., White
v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[Plaintiff’s] complaint was
subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprised
of his current address.”); Hananiah v. Shelby Cty. Gov’t, No. 12-3074-JDT-TMP, 2015 WL
52089, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2015) (“Without such basic information as a plaintiff’s current
address, courts have no recourse but to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute.”).
The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:

July 11, 2016

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel for Defendant
4414.005

2