Tramber v. Parnell et al, No. 5:2009cv00076 - Document 8 (W.D. Ky. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 6/30/09: an appropriate order shall issuecc:counsel (KJS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH STEPHON L. TRAMBER v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09CV-P76-R RICKY PARNELL et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, an inmate at the Fulton County Detention Center, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was not being provided with medication to treat his serious mental health condition in violation of his federal constitutional rights. He sued the following officials in both their individual and official capacities: Ricky Parnell, Jeff Johnson, Jim Williams, and Mitch Guree. By Order entered May 21, 2009 (DN 4), the Court granted Plaintiff s application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Furthermore, by Order entered May 26, 2009 (DN 5) the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint to state the involvement of each individual Defendant before screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Both Orders were returned to sender by the United States Postal Service with notations stating: NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD. (DNs 6, 7). Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court advised of his current address and to litigate his claims actively. 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. ). Apparently, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Fulton County Detention Center, and he has not advised the Court of any change in his address. Because neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants in this action can be served on Plaintiff, the Court construes this action to be abandoned. The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. Date: cc: June 30, 2009 Plaintiff, pro se Defendants 4413.008 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.
