Johnson v. Pryor et al, No. 5:2010cv00096 - Document 7 (W.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 6/24/10; By separate order, the court will dismiss this action. cc:counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), defendants, CCA (JBM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10CV-P96-R RAYMOND LISLIE JOHNSON PLAINTIFF v. LYNN PORTER et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Unrepresented by counsel, the plaintiff, Raymond Lislie Johnson, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. On May 26, 2010, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff an Order. The Order was sent to Plaintiff at his address of record, the Christian County Jail. On June 17, 2010, the copy of the Court s Order was returned by the United States Postal Service. Apparently, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Christian County Jail. Despite being transferred or released, Plaintiff has failed to update the Court with his new address. This evinces an intent on Plaintiff s part to abandon this action. 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. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). [T]he lenient treatment of pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily 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, 951 F.2d at 110). 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). Upon review, Plaintiff s failure to comply with the Court s requirement to keep the Clerk s Office updated with his address shows a failure to pursue this case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. Date: June 24, 2010 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendants Christian County Attorney 4413.008
]]>
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.
