Johnson v. Claud

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/14/2018; 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. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant Paulis; Counsel of Record (CDF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
JOSHUA BRYAN JOHNSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-P173-TBR

JAILER KEN CLAUD et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 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.”).
The Court sent several documents to Plaintiff on March 20, 2018. Those mailings were
returned to the Court by the U.S. Post Office marked “Return to Sender; Not Deliverable as
Addressed; Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his new address, and
neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants in this action can be served on Plaintiff.
In such situations, 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.
Date:

May 14, 2018

cc:
4413.009

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant Paulis
Counsel of record