Frame v. Buck Enterprise, Inc, No. 5:2014cv00108 - Document 6 (W.D. Ky. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 7/25/14; The Court will dismiss this action by separate Order. cc:counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14CV-108-R JAMES E. FRAME PLAINTIFF v. BUCK ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff James E. Frame, proceeding pro se, filed the instant action on a general complaint form along with an application to proceed with the prepayment of filing fees. On June 12, 2014, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff s application and ordering him to tender the $400.00 filing fee to the Clerk of Court within 30 days. More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court s Order. 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 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 the Court s Order shows a failure to pursue his case. Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. Date: July 25, 2014 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4413.010 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.
