Goodan v. Lanning et al, No. 3:2013cv00523 - Document 8 (W.D. Ky. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge John G. Heyburn, II; The Court will dismiss this action by separate order.cc: Plaintiff, pro se (JLS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE JASON L. GOODAN PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV-P523-H ROBERT LANNING et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION By Order entered June 4, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff Jason L. Goodan, pro se, to fill out the last page of the ยง 1983 complaint form because he failed to indicate the type of relief sought and to sign and date the complaint. The Court warned that failure to comply within 30 days would result in dismissal of the action. A review of the record reveals that the copy of that Order (as well as a copy of the Court s May 31, 2013, Order granting Plaintiff s application to proceed without prepayment of fees) was returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service with the envelope marked Return To Sender Inmate Not In Custody (DNs 6 & 7). Apparently, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections, his address of record. Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See 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. ). Because Plaintiff has not provided any forwarding address to the Court, neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants 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 prosecuting this case, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. Date: August 6, 2013 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4412.005 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.
