Althizer v. Stacy et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 12/08/2017. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs 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.cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants; Ballard County Attorney (MNM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17CV-97-TBR
MELVIN ALTHIZER
PLAINTIFF
v.
DAWN STACY et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Melvin Althizer initiated this pro se action alleging violations of his
constitutional rights in connection with an arrest. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, this Court must review the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
On October 27, 2017, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order finding that Plaintiff
makes various claims in connection with his arrest and that it appeared from the complaint that
the charges against him were still pending. The Court found that under Wallace v. Kato, 549
U.S. 384, 393 (2007), if Plaintiff had a criminal case still pending stemming from the allegations
in the complaint, it may be necessary for the Court to stay the instant action until completion of
the criminal matter. The Court noted, alternatively, that if Plaintiff had 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).
2
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.
Date:
December 8, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
Ballard County Attorney
4413.010
3
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?