Ross v. Wilson et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 10/11/2016: 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. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BRANDON L. ROSS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-P72-JHM
RITA WILSON et al .
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(e) (“All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential
address, and, if different, mailing 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 this action on June 13, 2016. On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DN 9). The Court granted this motion by Order entered on
July 8, 2016 (DN 11) and mailed this Order to Plaintiff. However, on August 8, 2016, the United
States Postal Service returned the notice to the Court with the returned envelope marked
“RETURN TO SENDER . . . UNABLE TO FORWARD” (DN 12). Several months have 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
October 11, 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?