Knight v. Cpl. Backhurst et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. 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. cc:Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15CV-P30-JHM

MICHAEL JOE KNIGHT

PLAINTIFF

v.
CPL. BACKHURST et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Michael Joe Knight, 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 mailings to Plaintiff on March 20, 2015, and April 6, 2015. The
mailings were returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, Not
Deliverable as Addressed, 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 in this action 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). 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:

June 25, 2015

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.010

2