Rayburn v. Blue et al
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 1/10/2017: The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
BENNETT LEE RAYBURN
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-P91-JHM
JOE BLUE (JAILER) et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se civil rights action brought by convicted prisoner Bennett Lee Rayburn
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 23, 2016, Defendants Jodi Blake and Robert James filed separate motions
for summary judgment (DNs 33 & 34). On September 26, 2016, the six “Hopkins County”
Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment (DN 35). On November 10, 2016, this
Court entered an Order permitting Plaintiff to file a response to these motions for summary
judgment even though the time for such had expired (DN 36). On November 28, 2016, this
Order was returned to the Court in an envelope marked “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to
Forward” (DN 37).
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(e) (“All pro se
litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential 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.”).
In addition, Rule 41(b) 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)).
A review of the docket sheet reveals that over a month has passed without Plaintiff
providing any notice of an address change or filing any other document with the Court.
Consequently, neither orders from this Court nor filings by Defendants can be served on him.
Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules by failing to provide
his current address, the Court 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 dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:
January 10, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4414.011
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?