Crouch v. Baldwin, No. 4:2011cv00079 - Document 11 (W.D. Ky. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 9/23/11; Because it appears to this Court that the Plaintiff has abandoned interest in prosecuting this case, the Court will dismiss the action by separate order.cc:counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT OWENSBORO JEREMY MATTHEW CROUCH v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11CV-P79-M DR. DAN BALDWIN DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION By Order entered July 22, 2011, the Honorable Chief District Court Judge Thomas B. Russell transferred this action to the Owensboro Division (DN 8). On August 22, 2011, the copy of that Order sent to Plaintiff at Grayson County Detention Center, his address of record, was returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service (DN 10). The envelope was marked Return to Sender, Undeliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward, and a handwritten notation indicated that Plaintiff was released on July 7, 2011. 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. ). Apparently, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Grayson County Detention Center, and because he 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: September 23, 2011 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4414.005 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.