Iden v. Internal Revenue Service
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers. 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. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-P44-GNS
RICHARD IDEN
PLAINTIFF
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Richard Iden, a pro se prisoner, initiated this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 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 May 19, 2015. The mailing was returned
by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward.”
Plaintiff apparently is no longer housed at his address of record, and he has not advised the Court of
a change of address. Therefore, neither notices from this 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:
July 14, 2015
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4416.010
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
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?