Hardy v. Parnell et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. Because Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case, by separate Order, the action will be dismissed. cc: Plaintiff (pro se); Fulton County Attorney (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH

VICTOR HARDY

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13CV-P73-R

RICKY PARNELL et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Victor Hardy filed this pro se civil-rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. By Order entered October 22, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee. Shortly thereafter, on November 5, 2013, the Court entered
a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the amended complaint and supplement for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted but providing Plaintiff with an
opportunity to amend his complaint. The U.S. Postal Service returned Plaintiff’s copy of these
two Orders to the Court; the envelopes were marked “Return to Sender” and “Not Deliverable/
Undeliverable as Addressed.”
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep 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.”). Apparently,
Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Roederer Correctional Complex, his address of record.
Because he has not provided any forwarding address to the Court, neither notices from this Court
nor filings by Defendants can be served on him.

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. 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.”). Additionally, courts have 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 prosecuting
this case, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Date:

December 16, 2013

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Fulton County Attorney
4413.005

2