Turner v. Hopkins County
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 10/5/2021: The Court will enter a separate order dismissing this case. Defendant's 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. cc:counsel; Plaintiff, pro se (EAS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-P191-JHM
Upon filing the instant action, Thomas D. Turner, who is proceeding pro se, assumed the
responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current address and of actively litigating his
claims. See LR 5.3(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
On August 20, 2021, a mailing from this Court sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was
returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service with “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as
Addressed, Unable to Forward.” (DN 29). Another Court Order has been returned to the Court
since that time. (DN 32). Apparently, Plaintiff is no longer housed at his address of record, and
he has not advised the Court of a change of address. Therefore, neither notices from this Court
nor filings by Defendant in this action can be served on Plaintiff.
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.
“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,
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules by failing to provide
written notice of a change of address, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack
of prosecution. See White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2002)
(“[Plaintiff’s] complaint was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep
the district court apprised of his current address.”).
The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. Consequently, Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (DN 30) is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff, pro se
counsel of record
October 5, 2021
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?