Conway v. Fulton County Detention Center

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. For the reasons stated, the action will be dismissed by separate order. cc:Plaintiff, pro se; Fulton County Attorney (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12CV-P200-R

JESSIE CONWAY

PLAINTIFF

v.
RICKY PARNELL et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Jessie Conway initiated this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 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 Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on November 21, 2013. That mailing was
returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable As
Addressed, Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff has not advised the Court of a change of address.
Moreover, while Plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of his motion for preliminary injunction remains
pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a review of the docket in the Sixth Circuit does

1

Plaintiff has an appeal pending before the Sixth Circuit regarding the denial of his
motion for a preliminary injunction. This Court nevertheless may decide Plaintiff’s case on the
merits. “‘[A]n appeal from an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction does not divest
the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with the action on the merits.’” Molton Co. v. EaglePicher Indus., 55 F.3d 1171, 1174 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting 9 M. Moore, B. Ward & J. Lucas,
Moore’s Federal Practice para. 203.11, at 3-54 (2d ed. 1989)). Therefore, this Court retains
jurisdiction over the merits of the case and may dismiss the case, if appropriate. See Branham v.
Spurgis, 720 F. Supp. 605, 607 n.2 (W.D. Mich. 1989).

not reveal any other address of record for Plaintiff. Therefore, neither notices from the 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 the case by separate
Order.
Date:

March 11, 2014

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Fulton County Attorney
4413.010

2