Slappy v. Fizzell et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 6/23/2016; Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Orders shows a failure to pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel (CDR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-00185-GNS

WILLIE COLEMAN SLAPPY

PLAINTIFF

v.

AMY ROELL; and
JEFF RODGERS

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Willie Coleman Slappy (“Slappy”) filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 proceeding in forma pauperis. At the time of filing the Complaint, Plaintiff was a prisoner
at the Hickman County Detention Center but has since been released.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court conducted an initial review of the
Complaint. On January 16, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum and Scheduling Order
allowing certain claims asserted by Plaintiff (i.e., the individual-capacity Eighth Amendment
claims against Defendants Amy Roell and Jeff Rodgers) to proceed past initial screening,
directing service of the Complaint on those Defendants, and setting forth pre-trial deadlines.
(Mem. Op. & Order, DN 9; Scheduling Order, DN 10).

Subsequently, on May 8, 2015,

Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion to Compel. (Defs.’ Mot. to
Dismiss, DN 16). While Slappy did not respond, the Court denied the motion to dismiss but
granted the motion to compel and directed Plaintiff to comply with discovery deadlines imposed
by the Court. (Mem. Op. & Order 2-6, DN 17).

On October 20, 2015, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss and/or Summary
Judgment. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss and/or for Summ. J., DN 21). On November 24, 2015,
Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., DN 22).
Plaintiff has taken no action in this case since the Court entered its Scheduling Order,
other than filing a non-prisoner motion to proceed in forma pauperis on October 1, 2014, and his
notification of change of address on March 9, 2015. Therefore, on December 9, 2015, the Court
entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one day as to why the Court
should not rule on the pending dispositive motions and that the case should not be dismissed for
his failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s orders. (Order, DN 23). Slappy did not
respond to that order or the pending motions.
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)
(internal citation omitted) (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

2

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 Orders
shows a failure to pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the
instant action.

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
June 23, 2016

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
counsel of record

3