Washington v. White
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell; All claims against the named Defendant have been dismissed, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's Order directing him to file an amended complaint within the time allotted. Accordingly, this matter must be dismissed. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant (ERH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-P247-TBR
TREMAINE DEJUAN WASHINGTON
PLAINTIFF
v.
RANDY WHITE
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Tremaine Dejuan Washington filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
proceeding in forma pauperis naming Randy White, the Warden of the Kentucky State
Penitentiary (KSP), as the only Defendant. On May 27, 2016, upon initial screening of the
complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and
Order (DN 16) dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant White pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking
monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
However, the Court gave Plaintiff a 30-day period in which he could amend his
complaint to name as Defendant(s) the specific individual(s) whom he alleges are responsible for
his claims and state specifically the factual allegations against them. That 30-day period expired
with no amendment filed by Plaintiff despite the Court’s specific warning to Plaintiff that:
“Plaintiff is WARNED that should he not file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Court
will enter an Order dismissing the action for the reasons stated herein.” (Emphasis omitted.)
On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Clerk of Court in which he stated he wished
to “supplement inclosed within case number 5:15-cv-0024-TBR. First grievance filed on
complaint.” To the letter Plaintiff attached 4 pages of grievance-related forms that he had
submitted to KSP officials. However, the filing in no way satisfies this Court’s order to file an
amended complaint naming the specific individuals whom he alleges are responsible for his
claims and to state specifically the factual allegations against them.
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to actively litigate his
claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the Court to dismiss the action “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Although federal
courts afford pro se litigants some leniency on matters that require legal sophistication, such as
formal pleading rules, the same policy does not support leniency from court deadlines and other
procedures readily understood by laypersons, particularly where there is a pattern of delay or
failure to pursue a case. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). “[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)
(citing Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 110). 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).
All claims against the named Defendant have been dismissed, and Plaintiff failed to
comply with the Court’s Order directing him to file an amended complaint within the time
allotted. Accordingly, this matter must be dismissed. The Court will enter a separate Order of
dismissal.
Date:
July 26, 2016
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4413.010
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?