Croley v. Tynes et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 9/21/2017; a separate order shall enter.cc:plaintiff pro se, defendants (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
BEN MICHAEL CROLEY
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17CV-P43-TBR
MELAINE TYNES et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Ben Michael Croley, 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.”).
On July 28, 2017, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a docket sheet per his request for
information in a letter (DN 5). The copy of the docket sheet sent to Plaintiff was returned to the
Court by the United States Postal Service with the envelope marked “Return to Sender, Not
Deliverable As Addressed, and Unable to Forward” (DN 7). 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 Defendants 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
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:
September 21, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4413.005
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?