Henson v. Verizon Wireless Inc.

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell; 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. A separate Order of dismissal will be entered. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION

NATHAN HENSON

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-P116-TBR

VERIZON WIRELESS INC.

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Nathan Henson initiated this pro se action by filing a civil-rights complaint on
his own paper. On May 13, 2015, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of Deficiency (DN 3) to
Plaintiff directing him to file his action on a form; to either pay the filing fee or file an
application to proceed without prepayment of fees along with a certified copy of his prison/jail
trust account statement; and to complete and return a summons for each Defendant. The Notice
of Deficiency advised Plaintiff that failure to comply within 30 days would result in this matter
being brought to the attention of the Court. Plaintiff failed to comply. Consequently, by Order
(DN 4) entered June 22, 2015, the Court directed Plaintiff to comply with the foregoing
deficiencies. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply within 30 days from the entry
of the Order would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and for failure to
comply with an Order of this Court. 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. A separate Order of
dismissal will be entered.
Date:

August 5, 2015

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.005

2