Ratliff v. Stacey et al

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
JAMES RATLIFF
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-P143-TBR

MIKE STACEY et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 18, 2015, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of Deficiency (DN 3) to Plaintiff
directing him to cure several deficiencies in the filing of his complaint. 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. Because Plaintiff failed to comply, the Court, by
Order entered July 31, 2015, directed Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies1 within 30 days from the
entry date of the Order (DN 4). The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply within the
time allotted would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and for failure to
comply with an Order of this Court. Over 30 days have passed without compliance by Plaintiff.
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

1

Specifically, the Court directed Plaintiff to (1) file his complaint on a Court-supplied 42 U.S.C. § 1983
form; (2) either pay the $400.00 fee for filing this action or file an application to proceed without
prepayment of fees along with a certified copy of his jail trust account statement for the six-month period
immediately preceding the filing of the complaint; and (3) complete a summons form for each Defendant
named in the complaint.

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:

September 17, 2015

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.005

2