Scott v. Henderson et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 7/10/2018. A separate order shall enter. cc: counsel, plaintiff pro se (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
JOSHUA DANIEL SCOTT
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-P52-TBR

TOMMY HENDERSON et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 25, 2018, this Court entered an Order (DN 30) that within 30 days Plaintiff must
respond to Defendants’ motion to compel and for an extension of discovery deadlines. That
Order also noted that mail recently sent to Plaintiff by the Court was returned by the U.S. Postal
Service marked “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward,” but that Plaintiff had filed a
letter stating that he would be released from incarceration soon and providing an address for him
after his release. Therefore, the Court mailed its Order to Plaintiff at both addresses. That Order
warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond as directed within 30 days would result in dismissal of
this action.
More than 30 days have passed. The Order sent to Plaintiff at his address of
incarceration has been returned by the U.S. Postal service marked “Return to Sender, Refused,
Unable to Forward.” The mailing sent to Plaintiff at his address after release has not been
returned. However, Plaintiff has not responded as he was ordered to do.
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). Because it appears to this Court

that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the
case by separate Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (governing involuntary dismissal).
Date:

July 10, 2018

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4413.009

2