Frazier v. Johnston
Filing
8
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. The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
WOODROW ALLEN FRAZIER
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16CV-P41-JHM
MATT JOHNSON
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Woodrow Allen Frazier filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By
Order entered May 12, 2016 (DN 6), the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed without
prepayment of fees. On June 1, 2016, the copy of the Order mailed to Plaintiff was returned to
the Court by the United States Postal Service with the returned envelope marked “Return to
Sender,” “Not Deliverable As Addressed,” and “Unable to Forward” (DN 7).
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 a month has passed without Plaintiff
providing any notice of an address change. Consequently, neither orders from this Court nor
filings by Defendant 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 25, 2016
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4414.005
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?