Partin v. Michael Parris, et al

Filing 49

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 8/21/19. (mbm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
COURTNEY PARTIN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MICHAEL PARRIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-1178-JDT-cgc

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Plaintiff Courtney Partin filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(ECF No. 1). At the time, he was incarcerated at the Northwest Correctional Complex
(NWCX) in Tiptonville, Tennessee.1 The Court dismissed the case sua sponte under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim, (ECF No. 16), but the
Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings
against Defendant Joseph Woodard. Partin v. Parris, et al., No. 17-6172, 2018 WL
1631663 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2018). Defendant Woodard eventually was served with process
on June 5, 2019. (ECF No. 46 at PageID 323.) No answer or other response to the
complaint has been filed, and Partin has taken no further action to move this case forward.

1

On July 9, 2018, Partin notified the Court he had been released from prison and
provided his new address. (ECF No. 37.)

Therefore, Partin is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, why this case should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. A response to this order must be filed within twentyone (21) days, on or before September 11, 2019.2 If Partin fails to respond to this order
within the time specified, the Court will dismiss this action without further notice, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Because Partin is no longer a prisoner his response must actually be received by the
Clerk by the stated deadline in order to be deemed timely. He is no longer entitled to the
“mailbox rule” applicable to documents filed by incarcerated litigants under Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. U.S. 266 (1988).
2