Lane v. North Winds Living Center Inc et al

Filing 29

ORDER DISMISSING CASE as the plaintiff has taken no action since the Court directed plaintiff to file a change of address (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 10/27/2011. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROSS LYNN LANE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NORTH WINDS LIVING CENTER, INC., )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-10-1356-M

ORDER
On December 15, 2010, plaintiff commenced this action against defendants North Winds
Living Center, Inc., Kelly Jones, Teresa Johnson, Kathy Terry, and Stacey LNU. On August 2, 2011,
the Court directed plaintiff to file a change of address with the Court. Plaintiff has not filed a change
of address and, as a result, the Court has received returned mail to plaintiff marked as undeliverable.
Every court has the inherent power in the exercise of sound discretion to dismiss a cause for
want of prosecution. See Stanley v. Continental Oil Co., 536 F.2d 914, 917 (10th Cir. 1976); e.g.,
Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (inherent power vested in courts to manage own
affairs so as to achieve orderly and expeditious disposition of cases). The propriety of such a
decision depends on the procedural history of the particular case involved. See Petty v. Manpower,
Inc., 591 F.2d 615, 617 (10th Cir. 1979).
The procedural history of this case indicates that plaintiff has taken no action since the Court
directed plaintiff to file a change of address. The Court has the inherent power to clear its calendar
of a case that has remained dormant because of the inaction of the party seeking relief. Particularly,
plaintiff’s failure to file a change of address has rendered him unable to receive correspondence in
the case at bar and has prevented this matter from furthering towards a disposition. In balancing the

harshness of dismissal without prejudice against the necessity of bringing the case to a point where
it can be resolved, the Court finds that plaintiff’s Complaint should be and is hereby DISMISSED
without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2011.