United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge
Steven Lovette initiated this pro se prisoner civil
rights action on May 4, 2016. On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff
submitted a letter to the Court indicating that he was no
longer incarcerated (DN 8). Accordingly, on September 29,
2016, the Court entered an Order advising Plaintiff that he
had 30 days to either pay the filing fee or complete a
non-prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of
fees (DN 10). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply
with this Order could result in the dismissal of this action.
On this same date, the Court also conducted an initial review
of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th
Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (DN 9). In this Memorandum
Opinion and Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's
official-capacity claims for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, but allowed Plaintiff 30 days to
amend his individual-capacity claims to prevent dismissal of
the entire action.
October 18, 2016, both of these Orders were returned to the
Court as “undeliverable” (DN 11). On November 18,
2016, these documents were re-mailed to Plaintiff and, this
time, they were not returned. As of this date, well over one
month has passed since these documents were re-mailed to
Plaintiff, and he has not filed a notice of change of address
or any other document with this Court.
because Plaintiff has failed to amend his complaint as
directed by the Court's September 29, 2016, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, the Court will dismiss this action by
separate Order for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
Court will also dismiss this action under Rule 41(b) for
failure to comply with the Order of the Court entered on the
same date. 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.”); Lyons-Bey v. Pennell,
93 F. App'x 732, 733 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co.,370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)) ([T]he
United States Supreme Court has recognized ...