Wicks et al v. Hopkins County Detention Center

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 9/3/2021: This action will be dismissed by separate order as Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.cc:counsel; Plaintiff, pro se (EAS)

Case 4:20-cv-00111-JHM Document 21 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20CV-P111-JHM
JEREMY RAY WICKS

PLAINTIFF

V.
HOPKINS COUNTY

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Jeremy Ray Wicks filed the instant pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (DN 19). Plaintiff failed to file a response to the
motion for summary judgment. However, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, by Order entered on
June 21, 2021 (DN 20), the Court gave him an additional 30 days to file a response to the pending
motion. The Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to file a response to the pending motion within
the time allowed, the Court would dismiss this action. (Id. at 1).
More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order
or to otherwise take any action in this case. Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the
responsibility to actively litigate his claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the
Court to dismiss the action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a
court order.” 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. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.
1991). “[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

Case 4:20-cv-00111-JHM Document 21 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 90

party more generously than a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th
Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted). 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).
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a straightforward order,
despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, shows that Plaintiff has
abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, this action will be dismissed by
separate Order.

September 3, 2021

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record

2