Montgomery v. Routt et al, No. 3:2011cv00303 - Document 31 (W.D. Ky. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 5/25/12; Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecutionof this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order.cc:counsel, Plaintiff-pro se (DAK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV-P303-H CHRISTOPHER D. MONTGOMERY PLAINTIFF v. SGT. RICKY ROUTT et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Christopher D. Montgomery initiated this pro se civil action under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Defendant Danny Allen filed a motion for summary judgment on February 8, 2012 (DN 28). Plaintiff did not file a response. On April 12, 2012, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a response. On April 24, 2012, that mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked Return to Sender, Attempted Not Known, Unable to Forward. Plaintiff has not advised the Court of a change of address. Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 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. ). Because Plaintiff has not advised the Court of a change of address, neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants in this action 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). Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. Date: May 25, 2012 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel or Record 4412.010 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.
