Ivy v. Leigh et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 1/30/2017: The court will dismiss this complaint by separate order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
MARCUS E. IVY
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16CV-P93-JHM
JANICE LEIGH et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Marcus E. Ivy filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1). At the
time he filed the complaint, he listed his address as the Henderson County Detention Center
(HCDC). By Order (DN 7) entered September 9, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from governmental
actors, the Court was preparing to perform an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Review of the Court’s records, however, reveals that copies of orders sent to
Plaintiff at HCDC in two of his other actions filed in this Court were recently returned to the
Court by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. See Ivy v. HCDC et al., 4:16-cv-77-JHM
(DN 8, mail returned on Dec. 12, 2016, marked “Return To Sender, Attempted – Not Known,
Unable to Forward”); Ivy v. Wathen et al., 4:16-cv-92-JHM (DN 10, mail returned Dec. 12,
2016, marked “Return To Sender, Attempted – Not Known, Unable to Forward”).1
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
1
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 18, 2017, this Court dismissed Ivy v. Wathen et
al., 4:16-cv-92-JHM, without prejudice for failure to prosecute due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide a
notice of change of address.
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)).
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the U.S. Postal Service recently returned
mail sent to Plaintiff at HCDC, his address of record in the instant action, as undeliverable in two
of his other cases. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide a notice of an address change in this or
any of his actions, neither orders from this Court nor filings by Defendants can be served on him.
The Court taking any further action in the instant case, therefore, would be an act of futility and a
waste of judicial resources. For these reasons, the Court concludes that dismissal without
prejudice 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:
January 30, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
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?