Winnett v. All Medical Staff et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 5/11/2017: Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's Local Rules by failing to provide written notice of his current address, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case and will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
WILLIAM THOMAS WINNETT II
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-P143-JHM

SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff William Thomas Winnett II initiated this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on
November 7, 2016. On January 30, 2017, Plaintiff advised the Court of a change of address and
his address of record was updated to reflect this new address (DN 13). However, On March 20,
2017, an Order of this Court mailed to Plaintiff at his new address was returned to the Court in
an envelope marked “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward” (DN 16). Plaintiff
apparently is no longer housed at the most recent address provided to the Court, and he has not
advised the Court of any subsequent change of address. Therefore, neither orders from this
Court nor filings by Defendant in this action can be served on him.
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff 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.”).
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
written notice of his current address, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in
prosecuting this case and will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:

May 11, 2017

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4414.011

2