Perry v. Henderson County Detention Center

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., dismissing action for lack of prosecution. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (RR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
JASON PERRY
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-P14-JHM

HENDERSON COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, assumed the
responsibility to keep this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims.
See Local Rule 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.”).
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on February 12, 2016. On that same day, the
Clerk’s Office sent Plaintiff a notice advising him that the complaint he filed was deficient for
several reasons (DN 3). On February 24, 2016, the United States Postal Service returned the notice
to the Court with the returned envelope marked ““RETURN TO SENDER, REFUSED, UNABLE
TO FORWARD, RETURN TO SENDER” (DN 4). A handwritten notation on the envelope states
“RTS Gone.” Over one month has passed without Plaintiff providing any notice of an address
change.
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)).
Because Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address, the Court concludes that
he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case, and the Court will dismiss the action by
separate Order.
Date:

cc:

March 28, 2016

Plaintiff, pro se

4414.011

2