Roark v. Robertson et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/31/2012: an appropriate order shall issuecc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CECIL ROARK, II
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10CV-147-R
TAMMY ROBERTSON et al.
Plaintiff Cecil Roark, II initiated this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon filing the
instant action, he assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current address
and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(d) (“All pro se litigants must provide written notice
of a change of 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 February 16, 2012. That mailing was returned by
the U.S. Postal Service marked: “Return to Sender; Attempted Not Known; Unable to Forward.”
On March 8, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 21 days as to why he had not
responded to a motion filed by Defendants and to update his address. That Order also was
returned by the U.S. Postal Service marked “Return to Sender; Attempted Not Known; Unable to
Plaintiff has not advised the Court of a change of address, and neither notices from this
Court nor filings by Defendants in this action can 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 Plaintiff’s claims by separate Order.
May 31, 2012
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?