Ridgeway v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 3:2011cv00696 - Document 13 (W.D. Ky. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 6/21/12; it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecutionof this case, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims by separate order.cc: Plaintiff, pro se, Defendant (DAK)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE THOMAS RIDGEWAY PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV-P696-H COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Thomas Ridgeway initiated this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon filing the instant action, he 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. ). The Court sent an Order to Plaintiff on February 6, 2012, to pay the filing fee or complete a prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees and to file a completed § 1983 complaint form. Although that mailing was not returned by the United States Postal Service, Plaintiff thereafter filed a change of address with the Court. The Clerk of Court, therefore, sent another Order to Plaintiff at the new address. Seemingly in response, Plaintiff wrote a letter asking for forms. The Clerk of Court obliged, but mistakenly sent the forms to Plaintiff s old address. That mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward. The Clerk of Court then resent the forms to Plaintiff s new address. However, that mailing also has come back marked Inmate No Longer Here; Return to Sender. Plaintiff has not advised the Court of another change of address, and neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendant in this action can be served on him. 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 Plaintiff s claims by separate order. Date: June 21, 2012 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendant 4412.009 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.