Campbell v. Thurby et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 9/22/2017: Because Plaintiff failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), defendants (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
DURON CAMPBELL

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17CV-44-JHM

DEPUTY THURBY et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By Order entered July 31, 2017 (DN 10), the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to
proceed without prepayment of fees and directed Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee to the
Clerk of Court within 30 days from entry of the Order. The Court warned Plaintiff that his
failure to pay the filing fee within the time allowed would result in dismissal of the action for
failure to prosecute.
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.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled
to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal
training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements
that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[T]he lenient treatment of 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). Additionally,
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).

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, despite
being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that he has
abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed by
separate Order.
Date:

September 22, 2017

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.005

cc:

2