Moore v. Ballard County Jail et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 12/5/2017; a separate order shall enter dismissing case.cc: plaintiff pro se, defendants, Ballard County Attorney (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17CV-P79-GNS
CHARLES CHRISTOPHER MOORE
BALLARD COUNTY JAIL et al.
Plaintiff Charles Christopher Moore, a convicted inmate at the Ballard County Jail, filed
a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint proceeding in forma pauperis. He sues the following
Defendants: the Ballard County Jail; the City of Wickliffe; James Cambell and Mandy Graves,
whom he identifies as Ballard County Jail personnel; and Mike Stacy, whom he identifies as a
prosecutor in Ballard County. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner initiating a civil action seeking
redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court must conduct initial
review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
On October 23, 2017, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order construing the
complaint as alleging a false arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state-law defamation
claim. The Court found that under Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007), if Plaintiff has a
criminal case stemming from the allegations in the complaint that is still pending, it may be
necessary for the Court to stay the instant action until completion of the criminal matter.
Alternatively, if Plaintiff has been convicted of the charges which he claims were brought
illegally, his claims may be barred by the doctrine announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994). Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to advise the Court in writing as to
the status of the criminal charges against him within 30 days. The Court ordered Plaintiff to state
all charges filed against him arising out of the incidents that are the subject of this lawsuit; to
provide the Court with the criminal action number(s) for those charges; for all charges, to state
whether the charges have been dismissed, are still pending, or whether he has been convicted; if
he has been convicted, to state whether a direct appeal or state collateral proceeding is pending;
if he has been convicted, to state specifically on what charges he was convicted and provide a
copy of the order or judgment of conviction entered in state court; and if any charges have been
dismissed, to state specifically what charges have been dismissed and provide a copy of the order
or judgment entered in state court. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the
Order within 30 days would result in dismissal of this action for failure to comply with an Order
of this Court.
More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s
Memorandum and Order or to take any other action in this case. 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 courtimposed 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).
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
Memorandum and Order shows a failure to pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the
Court will dismiss the instant action.
December 5, 2017
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
Plaintiff, pro se
Ballard County Attorney
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?