Campbell v. Thurby et al, No. 4:2017cv00044 - Document 11 (W.D. Ky. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 9/22/2017: Because Plaintiff failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), defendants (JBM)
Download PDF
Campbell v. Thurby et al Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION DURON CAMPBELL PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17CV-44-JHM DEPUTY THURBY et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION By Order entered July 31, 2017 (DN 10), the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and directed Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee to the Clerk of Court within 30 days from entry of the Order. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to pay the filing fee within the time allowed would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. 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 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.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[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 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Additionally, 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). Dockets.Justia.com Because Plaintiff failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed by separate Order. Date: September 22, 2017 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendants 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.