Geary v. Hardin County Detention Center, No. 3:2012cv00147 - Document 6 (W.D. Ky. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 5/11/12; it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution ofthis case, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims by separate Order.cc: Plaintiff, pro se, Defendant (DAK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE JEREMIAH A. GEARY PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV-P147-H HARDIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Jeremiah A. Geary initiated this civil action under 42 U.S.C. ยง 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 March 28, 2012, regarding the collection of the filing fee. That mailing was sent to Plaintiff at the Hardin County Detention Center, which was Plaintiff s address of record in this civil action. On April 2, 2012, this Court received notification from the Hardin County Detention Center that Plaintiff had been released from custody on March 29, 2012. Plaintiff has not advised the Court of a change of address, and neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendant 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 Plaintiff s claims by separate Order. Date: May 11, 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.
