Jones v. Pfeil et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 9/4/2018: Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
LOVELL JAVHON JONES
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-P123-JHM

JASON PFIEL et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.”).
The Court sent an Order to Plaintiff on May 31, 2018. On July 2, 2018, that mailing was
returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service marked “Return to Sender; Attempted Not
Known; Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his new address, and
documents from this Court and Defendants in this action cannot 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). Because it appears to this Court
that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the
case by separate Order.
Date:

September 4, 2018

cc:
4414.009

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record