Yarbrough v. United States

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers. For the reasons herein, the Court concludes that Petitioner has abandoned his interest in prosecuting this case and, therefore, will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Petitioner, pro se; US Atty (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
JOHN YARBROUGH

PETITIONER

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-P124-GNS

UNITED STATES et al.

RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered January 21, 2016 (DN 12), the Court directed the Clerk to furnish
Respondents and the United States Attorney with a copy of John Yarbrough’s pro se 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the Court also set response and reply times. On
February 17, 2016, the United States Postal Service returned the copy of the Order sent to
Petitioner at his address of record (DN 13). The returned envelope was marked “Return To
Sender,” “Attempted – Not Known,” and “Unable To Forward.” A handwritten notation
indicated, “RTS Not Here.” Well over 30 days have passed since Petitioner’s mail has been
returned to the Court as undeliverable, and he has failed to notify the Court of a change in
address.
Upon filing the instant action, Petitioner assumed the responsibility to keep this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See Local Rule 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 Petitioner
has not provided any notice of an address change to the Court, neither orders from this Court nor
filings by Respondents can be served on him.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal
of an action if a litigant 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)).
The Court concludes that Petitioner has abandoned his interest in prosecuting this case
and, therefore, will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:

April 13, 2016

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

Petitioner, pro se
U.S. Attorney
4416.005

2