Thomas v. Liles et al, No. 3:2016cv00251 - Document 5 (W.D. Ky. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., holding that because Plaintiff has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court (DN 4) or taken any action in response to the Court's Order, he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants (RR)

Download PDF
Thomas v. Liles et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE ROBERT LEE THOMAS, JR. v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO.3:16-CV-251-JHM HILARY LILES et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Robert Lee Thomas, Jr., initiated the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by filing a pro se complaint (DN 1). By Order entered on August 3, 2016 (DN 4), the Court directed Plaintiff, within 30 days of entry of the Order, to (1) either pay the filing fee or file a non-prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees; and (2) submit a completed summons form for each Defendant named in the complaint. The Order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal of this action. Over 30 days have passed since the entry of the Order, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Order or taken any action in this case. 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.”). Although federal courts afford pro se litigants some leniency on matters that require legal sophistication, such as formal pleading rules, the same policy does not support leniency from court deadlines and other procedures readily understood by laypersons, particularly where there is a pattern of delay or failure to pursue a case. Id. at 110. “As this court has noted, the lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily Dockets.Justia.com understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d at 110). “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)). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court (DN 4) or taken any action in response to the Court’s Order, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. Date: September 14, 2016 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendants 4414.011 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.