Arnett v. Louisville Metro Government et al, No. 3:2015cv00146 - Document 36 (W.D. Ky. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 12/13/2016 - Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules and the Court's prior Order by failing to provide his current address, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.cc: Counsel, Plaintiff-pro se (DAK)

Download PDF
Arnett v. Louisville Metro Government et al Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION JASON PHILLIP ARNETT, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15cv-P146-DJH LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT et al., Defendants. * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Jason Phillip Arnett, a pro se prisoner, 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(e) (“All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential 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.”). In addition, in the Court’s Scheduling Order and Order Directing Service (DN 18), the Court ordered, “Should Plaintiff change addresses during the pendency of this matter, he must provide written notice of a change of address to the Clerk of Court and to Defendants’ counsel.” The Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on September 29, 2016. The mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward” (DN 35). Plaintiff apparently is no longer housed at his address of record, and he has not advised the Court of a change of address. Therefore, neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendant in this action can be served on Plaintiff. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan Dockets.Justia.com v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). Although federal courts afford pro se litigants some leniency on matters that require legal sophistication, such as formal pleading rules, the same policy does not support leniency from court deadlines and other procedures readily understood by laypersons, particularly where there is a pattern of delay or failure to pursue a case. Id. at 110. “As [the Sixth Circuit] has noted, the lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d at 110). “Further, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that courts have an inherent power to manage their own affairs and may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Lyons-Bey v. Pennell, 93 F. App’x 732, 733 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules and the Court’s prior Order by failing to provide his current address, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will dismiss the action by separate Order. Date: December 13, 2016 David J. Hale, Judge United States District Court cc: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of record 4415.010 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.