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 enter.cc: plaintiff pro se, defendants, Christian County Attorney (KJA)

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