Smith v. Mazza et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 1/18/2023: Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing once again to file a response to 23 Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment, despite being given an additional 90 days to do so, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.cc:counsel; Plaintiff, pro se (EAS)
Case 4:21-cv-00080-JHM Document 34 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 259
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21CV-00080-JHM
KEVIN MAZZA, et al.
Plaintiff Curtis Smith filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Erik
Lengenman, Chase McRoy, and Holly Rickard moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims
against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. [DN 23]. On July 18, 2022, the Court issued an Order
for Plaintiff Curtis Smith to respond to the pending motion within 30 days, and the Court warned
Plaintiff “failure to comply with this Order will result in DISMISSAL of this action.” [DN 27].
Plaintiff did not file a timely response. As a result, on September 2, 2022, the Court dismissed
this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) finding that Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Court’s Order to file a response. [DN 30, DN 31].
On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to complete discovery
and to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. [DN 32]. The Court also construed
this motion as a motion to reopen the case. On September 14, 2022, the Court granted the motion
and reopened the case. [DN 33]. The Court permitted an additional ninety (90) days for Plaintiff
to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to complete discovery. Plaintiff
once again has not filed a response, and the time to do so has passed.
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.
Case 4:21-cv-00080-JHM Document 34 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 260
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 generally accorded
to 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) (cleaned up).
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 has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing
once again to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, despite being given
an additional 90 days to do so, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.
January 18, 2023
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
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?