Raymond v. Jones et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 4/26/2017: 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 this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
RON JACOB ANDREW RAYMOND
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-P19-JHM

JACK JONES et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Ron Jacob Andrew Raymond initiated this pro se prisoner civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on February 21, 2017 (DN 3). This
mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender - Not
Deliverable as Addressed - Unable to Forward” on March 6, 2017 (DN 4).
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.”).
Moreover, 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 this case must be dismissed for
lack of prosecution. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:

April 26, 2017

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4414.011

2