Runyon v. Claud

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers: Because Plaintiff failed to comply with an Order of this Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. A separate Order of dismissal will be entered. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CHRISTIAN RUNYON
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-94-GNS

KEN CLAUD

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered May 26, 2015 (DN 8), the Court directed Plaintiff either to pay the
$400.00 fee for filing this civil action or to file a fully completed non-prisoner application to
proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court warned Plaintiff’s that his failure to comply
within 30 days from entry of the Order would result in dismissal of this action. The compliance
period has expired, and Plaintiff has failed to comply or show cause for said failure.
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.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled
to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal
training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements
that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[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). Additionally,
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 Plaintiff failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, the Court
concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, by separate
Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action.
Date:

July 14, 2015

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4416.005

2