Powell v. Harrington et al, No. 4:2014cv00107 - Document 6 (W.D. Ky. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. The Court will dismiss the case by separate Order as abandoned. cc:Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)

Download PDF
Powell v. Harrington et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT OWENSBORO CHARLES LOUIS POWELL, JR. v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14CV-P107-JHM RON HARRINGTON et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Charles Louis Powell, Jr., 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(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 Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on October 27, 2014. On November 25, 2014, that mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, Attempted – Not Known, Unable to Forward.” 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 Defendants 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). Furthermore, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) permits the Court to dismiss the action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules Dockets.Justia.com or a court order.” Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. Date: January 6, 2015 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4414.010 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.