Millard et al v. Durant et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order for the reasons stated. cc:Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14CV-P100-R
MARTY JOSEPH MILLARD
PLAINTIFF
v.
KEVIN DURANT et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff initiated this pro se civil action seeking a restraining order and preliminary
injunction against Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City Thunder, National Basketball Association, and
Chesapeake Energy. Plaintiff failed to pay the $400.00 filing fee or to file an application to
proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee. Therefore, the Court entered an Order on
May 22, 2014, directing Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed
without the prepayment of the filing fee within 30 days (DN 3). The Order stated, “Plaintiff is
WARNED that failure to tender the $400.00 filing fee or file an application to proceed without
prepayment of fees within 21 days will result in dismissal of his claims.” More than 21 days
have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 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).
Upon review, the Court finds that 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:
July 1, 2014
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.010
2
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?