Willis v. Daviess County Detention et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 9/19/16: Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's Local Rules by failing to provide his current address, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (DJT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16CV-P28-JHM
JEFFREY RAY WILLIS
DAVIESS COUNTY DETENTION et al.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Ray Willis, 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(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.”).
The Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on August 5, 2016. The mailing was
returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, 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.
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.”). Although federal courts afford pro se
litigants some leniency on matters that require legal sophistication, such as formal pleading rules,
the same policy does not support leniency from court deadlines and other procedures readily
understood by laypersons, particularly where there is a pattern of delay or failure to pursue a
case. Id. at 110. “As [the Sixth Circuit] has noted, the lenient treatment generally accorded to
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) (citing Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d at 110). “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 comply with this Court’s Local Rules by failing to provide
his current address, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
September 19, 2016
Plaintiff, pro se
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?