Shaw v. United States of America, No. 1:2013cv00062 - Document 6 (W.D. Ky. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 7/30/2013. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Clerk's directive and with an Order of this Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (TJD)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT BOWLING GREEN JAMES L. SHAW III PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV-P62-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 20, 2013, the Clerk of Court issued a deficiency notice to Plaintiff directing him to sign the complaint and to file a certified copy of his jail/prison trust account statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint (DN 4). The deficiency notice advised Plaintiff that failure to comply within 30 days, without good cause shown, would result in this matter being brought to the attention of the Court. Plaintiff failed to respond. On June 27, 2013, therefore, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the May 20, 2013, deficiency notice, or alternatively, to comply with the deficiencies (DN 5). The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order within 21 days would result in dismissal of this civil action. The 21 days have passed without any response by Plaintiff. 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. ). Additionally, courts have 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). 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, 951 F.2d at 110. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Clerk s directive and with an Order of this Court, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. Date: July 30, 2013 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4413.005 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.