Shead v. Fulton County Detention Center et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 7/27/2017: The Court will dismiss this complaint for failure to prosecute. The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH

MARCELLUS JEROME SHEAD
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17CV-P4-TBR

FULTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Marcellus Jerome Shead, who lists his address of record as the Fulton County
Detention Center (FCDC), filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1). Upon
filing the instant action, he assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his
current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(e) (“All pro se litigants must
provide written notice of a change of residential 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.”).
Upon Plaintiff’s filing of the complaint, the Clerk of Court sent a Notice of Deficiency
(DN 4) to Plaintiff, which was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service with the
envelope marked “Return to Sender, Inmate Released” and “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable
to Forward” (DN 5). An Order (DN 6) granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
however, was not returned to the Court. As it was unclear whether Plaintiff was still incarcerated
at FCDC, the Court, by Order entered July 17, 2017 (DN 7), directed the Clerk of Court to mail a
copy of the Order to Plaintiff at FCDC; directed Plaintiff, if he received the Order, to file a notice
of change of address within 21 days of entry of the Order; and warned Plaintiff that should the
Order be returned or if he failed to timely notify the Court of his change of address, this action

would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On July 25, 2017, the copy of the Order sent to
Plaintiff at FCDC was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service with the
envelope marked “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to forward” (DN 8).
The envelope was also stamped “Return to Sender, Inmate Released.” Id.
Plaintiff apparently is no longer housed at his address of record, and he has not advised
the Court of a change of address. Therefore, neither notices from this Court nor filings by
Defendant in this action can be served on 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.”). 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. “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 comply with this Court’s Local Rules by failing to provide
written notice of a change of address, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for
lack of prosecution. 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

2

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 *3 (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.”).
The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:

July 27, 2017

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4413.005

3