v. United States of America

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. Because Meadows failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order. cc: Movant/Defendant, pro se (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-P192-TBR

RONNIE EUGENE MEADOWS

DEFENDANT/MOVANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered March 21, 2016 (DN 4), the Court denied Defendant/Movant Ronnie
Eugene Meadows’s pro se motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel
because he failed to provide any financial information and any reason other than indigency for
appointment of counsel. The Court additionally directed Meadows to file an application to
proceed without prepayment of fees and a copy of his prison trust account statement for the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. The Court warned Meadows
that his failure to comply within 21 days from entry of the Order may result in dismissal of this
action. Well over 21 days have passed without compliance by Meadows.
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).
Because Meadows failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, the Court
will dismiss this action by separate Order.
Date:

May 17, 2016

cc:
Movant/Defendant, pro se
4413.005

2