Winnett v. Teasly et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 4/26/2017: The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
WILLIAM T. WINNETT II

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17CV-P8-JHM

LT. MARTY TEASLY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff William T. Winnett II filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By
Order entered February 14, 2017 (DN 5), the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed
without prepayment of fees. On March 6, 2017, 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” and “Unable to Forward” (DN 6).
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 Defendants 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:

April 26, 2017

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.005

2