Odom v. Willet et al, No. 3:2006cv00623 - Document 12 (W.D. Ky. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 9/22/09; for the reasons set forth, the Court will, dismiss this action by separate Order.cc:Plaintiff, pro se (SC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE GLENN D. ODOM v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06CV-P623-S BARRY WILLET et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 17, 2009, the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections sent a letter to this Court advising that Plaintiff is no longer in its custody (DN 11). Over a month has passed, and Plaintiff has not advised the Court of any change in his address. Pursuant to 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. Apparently, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at Louisville Metro Department of Corrections, and he has not provided any forwarding address to the Court. Since neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants in this action can be served on Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned his interest in prosecuting this action. 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). The Court will, therefore, dismiss the action by separate Order. Date: September 22, 2009 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4411.005
]]>
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.
