Ridgeway v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 1/11/2013; an appropriate order shall issuecc:counsel (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
THOMAS RIDGEWAY

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12CV-P118-R

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed this pro se civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 2, 2012, along
with a motion in which he requested the forms for filing an application to proceed without the
prepayment of fees. On August 20, 2012, the Court entered an Order directing the Clerk of
Court to send Plaintiff a blank prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees and
affidavit form and ordered Plaintiff to file an application to proceed without prepayment of fees
within 21 days.
On August 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for In Forma Pauperis,” wherein he stated
that he sought “to proceed without pre-payment of fees and costs in accordance with Federal
Civil Rule of Procedure 39 14 and 12.2 Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution pertaining to indigent
citizens rights . . . .” However, Plaintiff failed to file his motion on the Court’s approved form as
directed in the Order. Nor did he include a certified copy of his prison trust account statement as
is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). On September 6, 2012, the Court entered an Order
denying his motion and again directing Plaintiff to file his motion on the Court’s approved form
and to file a certified copy of his prison trust account statement. That Order was returned by the
United States Postal Service “Return to Sender,” and the Court thereafter directed the Clerk to
resend the Order to Plaintiff.

In the meantime, Plaintiff filed a second “Motion for In Forma Pauperis Status.” That
motion was also not filed on the Court’s approved form and did not include a certified copy of
his prison trust account statement.
Therefore, on November 10, 2012, the Court denied the motion and again ordered
Plaintiff to file an application to proceed without prepayment of fees on the Court’s approved
form and to file a certified copy of his prison trust account statement within 21 days. The Order
specifically warned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the Order it may result in dismissal
of the action. Plaintiff has failed to file the application or to otherwise comply with the Court’s
November 10, 2012, Order.
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 party more
generously than a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996)
(citing Jourdan, 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).

2

Upon review, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order shows a failure to
pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.
Date:

January 11, 2013

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4413.010

3