Osborne v. Unknown Defendants

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 7/10/2017: This case will be dismissed by separate order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
JOEL DAVID OSBORNE
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-32-JHM

UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing several documents and other exhibits and paid the
$400 filing fee for filing a civil action in this Court. By Order dated March 16, 2017, this Court
ordered Plaintiff to fill out the Court’s general civil complaint form and return it to the Court for
filing within 30 days. That mailing, which was sent to Plaintiff’s address of record, was returned
by the U.S. Postal Service marked, “Return to Sender; Refused; Unable to Forward.”
On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff informed the Clerk’s Office that he was now homeless and
that there was not an address to which mail could be delivered to him. On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff
filed additional documents in this case, but did not update the Clerk’s Office with a mailing
address. More than two months have passed since Plaintiff informed the Clerk’s Office that he
did not have a mailing address.
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, 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.”). Given that Plaintiff has not provided a current mailing address, neither
notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants can be served on Plaintiff. In such situations,

courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases
that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). The Court will dismiss this case by separate
Order.
Date:

July 10, 2017

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4414.009

2