Balcar et al v. Kentucky State Reformatory et al, No. 3:2016cv00665 - Document 29 (W.D. Ky. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 7/11/2018 - Plaintiff Perry is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Plaintiff Perry from this action.cc: Counsel, Plaintiff Balcar-pro se, Plaintiff Perry-pro se (DAK)

Download PDF
Balcar et al v. Kentucky State Reformatory et al Doc. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION YALE LARRY BALCAR et al. v. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV-P665-CRS KENTUCKY STATE REFORMATORY et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Order entered March 12, 2018 (DN 24), the Court directed Plaintiff Carl J. Perry, Jr., pro se, to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss (DN 21) or face dismissal. Plaintiff Perry sought an extension of time in which to file a response (DN 25). By Order entered May 10, 2018 (DN 27), the Court granted Plaintiff Perry’s motion for extension; directed him to file his response on or before June 11, 2018; and warned him that his failure to respond to the motion to dismiss within the time allowed would result in his dismissal from this action for failure to comply with an order of this Court and for failure to prosecute. Review of the record reveals that Plaintiff Perry has failed to respond. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[T]he lenient treatment of pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily Dockets.Justia.com 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). Additionally, 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 Plaintiff Perry failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court concludes that he has abandoned any interest in prosecuting this action. Consequently, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Perry is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Plaintiff Perry from this action. Date: July 11, 2018 cc: Plaintiff Balcar, pro se Plaintiff Perry, pro se Counsel of Record 4411.005 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.