Profitt v. Sherriff-Rape Case et al, No. 3:2010cv00472 - Document 5 (W.D. Ky. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 8/5/2010. For the reasons set forth, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (AEP)

Download PDF
Profitt v. Sherriff-Rape Case et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE MIKE JACOB PROFITT PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-472-H SHERRIFF RAPE CASE et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a handwritten, largely illegible document on his own paper (DN 1). The Clerk of Court issued a notice of deficiency directing Plaintiff to fill out a complaint form, prepare a summons for each Defendant, and either pay the $350 filing fee or file an application to proceed without prepayment of fee (DN 3). On July 14, 2010, the notice of deficiency was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service marked Returned to Sender-No Such Number (DN 4). 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(d) ( All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of 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. ). As is apparent from the returned mail, neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants 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). Dockets.Justia.com Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. Date: August 5, 2010 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4412.005 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.