Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rodney Henry Carter v. Muhlenberg County Detention Center et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT OWENSBORO


March 26, 2013

RODNEY HENRY CARTER
PLAINTIFF
v.
MUHLENBERG COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ET AL.
DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Rodney Henry Carter filed a pro se complaint and amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the conditions of his confinement at the Muhlenberg County Detention Center (DNs 1 & 6). On initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court allowed Eighth Amendment claims to continue against Defendants Mark Curry and Sid Finch and a First Amendment claim to continue against Defendant Curry (DNs 10 & 11).

Thereafter, Plaintiff notified the Court that he had been released from incarceration (DN 17). Consequently, by Order entered January 22, 2013, the Court directed Plaintiff either to pay the $336.96 balance of the filing fee or to file a non-prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees (DN 20). The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Order within 30 days may result in dismissal of the action. On February 7, 2013, the U.S. Postal Service returned Plaintiff's copy of the Order to the Court (DN 21). The envelope was marked "Not Deliverable As Addressed" and "Unable to Forward."*fn1

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."). Because Plaintiff is no longer at his address of record and 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.

cc:


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.