Jones v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission, No. 3:2017cv00507 - Document 59 (W.D. Ky. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge David J. Hale on 12/6/2019 - The Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to comply with a straightforward order, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, shows that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, Counsel of Record (KD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission Doc. 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION RIMA JONES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-507-DJH COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Defendant. * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 13, 2019, the Court entered an Order directing pro se Plaintiff Rima Jones to file a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action within 10 days of entry of the Order (Docket No. 58). The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal of this action. More than 10 days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a response or otherwise taken any action in this case. Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to actively litigate his claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the Court to dismiss the action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” 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. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). “[T]he lenient treatment of 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 Dockets.Justia.com 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 110). 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). Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a straightforward order, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, shows that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Therefore, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. Date: December 6, 2019 David J. Hale, Judge United States District Court cc: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of Record 4415.011 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.
