Stewart v. Christian County Jail et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 1/8/2018; a separate order will plaintiff pro se, defendants, Christian County Attorney (KJA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH ANTONIO G. STEWART PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-P132-TBR CHRISTIAN COUNTY JAIL et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Antonio G. Stewart filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 3, 2017 (DN 6), the Court completed an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On November 17, 2017, the copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service with the returned envelope marked “Return to Sender-Not Deliverable as Addressed-Unable to Forward” (DN 7). Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See Local Rule 5.2(e) (“All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential address, and, if different, mailing 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.”). Because Plaintiff has not provided any notice of an address change to the Court, neither orders, nor notices from this Court, nor filings by Defendants can be served on him. 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.”). “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)). A review of the docket reveals that over a month has passed without Plaintiff providing any notice of an address change. Consequently, neither orders from this Court nor filings by Defendants can be served on him. The Court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case and that dismissal is warranted. 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: January 8, 2018 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendants Christian County Attorney 4413.011 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?