United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro
H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge
a pro se civil rights action brought by convicted
prisoner Bennett Lee Rayburn pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
September 23, 2016, Defendants Jodi Blake and Robert James
filed separate motions for summary judgment (DNs 33 &
34). On September 26, 2016, the six “Hopkins
County” Defendants filed their motion for summary
judgment (DN 35). On November 10, 2016, this Court entered an
Order permitting Plaintiff to file a response to these
motions for summary judgment even though the time for such
had expired (DN 36). On November 28, 2016, this Order was
returned to the Court in an envelope marked “Return to
Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward” (DN 37).
filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the
responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current
address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR
5.2(e) (“All pro se litigants must provide
written notice of a change of residential 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.”).
addition, Rule 41(b) 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.”).
“Further, the United States Supreme Court has
recognized that courts have an inherent power to manage their
own affairs and may dismiss a case sua sponte for
lack of prosecution.” 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)).
review of the docket sheet reveals that over a month has
passed without Plaintiff providing any notice of an address
change or filing any other document with the Court.
Consequently, neither orders from this Court nor filings by
Defendants can be served on him. Thus, because Plaintiff has
failed to comply with this Court's Local Rules by failing
to provide his current address, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this case
and that dismissal is warranted. See, e.g., White v. City
of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App'x 210, 211 (6th Cir.
2002) (“[Plaintiffs] complaint was subject to dismissal
for want of prosecution because he failed to keep the
district court apprised of his current address.”);
Hananiah v. Shelby Cty. Gov't, No.