From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith-Spencer v. Harvey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION
Jul 6, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-P231-CRS (W.D. Ky. Jul. 6, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-P231-CRS

07-06-2018

ERIN JERMAINE SMITH-SPENCER PLAINTIFF v. OFFICER HARVEY DEFENDANT

cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendant


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Erin Jermaine Smith-Spencer initiated this action by filing a complaint and a prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of fees. However, because she did not attach a prison trust account statement for the prior six-month period, the Clerk of Court sent her a notice of deficiency giving her 30 days to do so. Plaintiff did not do so. Therefore, on May 23, 2018, the Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff 30 days in which to either pay the $400 fee for initiating a civil action or file a certified copy of her prison trust account statement. That Order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply fully within 30 days would result in dismissal of this action.

More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has neither paid the fee nor filed a prison trust account statement. 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."). 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. Id. at 110. "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)).

Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Date: July 6, 2018

/s/

Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge

United States District Court cc: Plaintiff, pro se

Defendant
4411.009


Summaries of

Smith-Spencer v. Harvey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION
Jul 6, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-P231-CRS (W.D. Ky. Jul. 6, 2018)
Case details for

Smith-Spencer v. Harvey

Case Details

Full title:ERIN JERMAINE SMITH-SPENCER PLAINTIFF v. OFFICER HARVEY DEFENDANT

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Jul 6, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-P231-CRS (W.D. Ky. Jul. 6, 2018)

Citing Cases

TAYLOR v. N.-C.-O. RY

IV. Respondent and the appellant became joint wrongdoers from the time the defendant was notified of the…

Cady v. Bradshaw

That request, coupled with his promise to let his name remain on the note if the time of payment should be…