Goodman v. Johnson
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 4/17/2017; a separate order shall enter dismissing case.cc: plaintiff pro se, defendant (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
MARVIN L. GOODMAN
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16CV-P197-TBR
MATTHEW JOHNSON
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1). He also filed a
motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court granted the motion to proceed without
prepayment of fees by Order dated January 30, 2017. That Order was returned to the Court; it
was marked “Mr. Goodman is no longer at the Christian Co. Jail” (DN 6).
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See Local Rule 5.2(e) (“All pro
se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential address, and, if different,
mailing 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 Plaintiff has not provided any notice of an address change to
the Court, neither orders or notices from this Court nor filings by Defendant can be served on
him.
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. 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.”). 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. Id. at 110. “As this court has noted, the lenient treatment generally accorded to 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 v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d at 110). “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)).
Because Plaintiff has failed to provide an updated address to the Court and an Order sent
to Plaintiff by this Court has been returned, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to
comply with Local Rule 5.2(e) and has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. See,
e.g., White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[Plaintiff’s]
complaint was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep the district
court apprised of his current address.”); Hananiah v. Shelby Cty. Gov’t, No. 12-3074-JDT-tmp,
2015 WL 52089, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2015) (“Without such basic information as a
plaintiff’s current address, courts have no recourse but to dismiss a complaint for failure to
prosecute.”).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:
April 17, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4413.003
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?