Smith v. Haney
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 10/12/2012; an appropriate order shall issuecc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
WILLIAM G. SMITH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12CV-P104-R
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY et al.
Petitioner William G. Smith filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (DN 1). He also filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees
(DN 7). On August 28, 2012, the Court entered an Order in this case denying Petitioner’s
application to proceed without prepayment of fees and directing him to tender the $5.00 filing
fee to the Clerk of Court within 30 days from entry of the Order (DN 9). The Order further
stated that, “Petitioner is WARNED that failure to comply with this Order within the time
allowed will result in dismissal of the action.” Over 30 days have passed since the entry of the
Order and Petitioner has failed to pay the filing fee as directed by the Court’s Order.
Additionally, he has not filed any document with the Court explaining this failure or requesting
additional time in which to comply. The Court’s record reflects that he has simply taken no
action regarding this matter.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal
of an action if a petitioner fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. 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. “As this court has noted, the 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) (citing Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d at 110). 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 Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s Order (DN 9) and has failed to take
any action in this case subsequent to entry of the Order, the Court concludes that he has
abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action.
Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.
October 12, 2012
Petitioner, pro se
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?