Thomas v. United States Navy et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. 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. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH

ROBERT LEE THOMAS, JR.

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-54-TBR

UNITED STATES NAVY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Robert Lee Thomas, Jr., filed a pro se civil complaint but did not file a
summons form for any Defendant, and he neither paid the filing fee nor sought to proceed in
forma pauperis. Consequently, by Order entered April 27, 2015 (DN 4), the Court ordered
Plaintiff either to pay the $400.00 filing fee or to file a fully completed application to proceed
without prepayment of fees and to submit a completed summons form for each Defendant named
in the complaint. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply within 30 days from the
Order’s entry date would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and for failure to
comply with an Order of this Court. On May 15, 2015, the U.S. Postal Service returned Plaintiff’s
copy of the Order to the Court with the returned envelope marked “Moved Left No Address,
Unable to Forward, Return to Sender” (DN 5).
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.”). Because Plaintiff

has not provided any notice of an address change 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.”). “Further, the United States Supreme
Court has recognized that courts have an inherent power to manage their own affairs and may
dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Lyons-Bey v. Pennell, 93 F. App’x 732, 733
(6th Cir. 2004) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (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.
Date:

June 26, 2015

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.005

2