You're viewing Docket Item 3 from the case Wardrick v. Morrow et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case: 6:13-cv-00099-DCR Doc #: 3 Filed: 07/30/13 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

SOUTHERN DIVISION

(at London)

ROBERT WARDRICK,

Plaintiff,

V.

A. MORROW and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6: 13-99-DCR

MEMORANDUM ORDER

*** *** *** ***

Robert Wardrick is confined in the United States Penitentiary-McCreary in Pine Knot,

Kentucky. On May 13, 2013, Wardrick filed a document entitled “Administrative Remedy

Procedure for Inmates Informal Resolution Form.” [Record No. 1] The filing purports to

challenge various conditions of his confinement.

On June 21, 2013, the Court gave Wardrick 28 days to re-submit his claims on the

Court’s approved complaint form, and either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma

pauperis. [Record No. 2] Wardrick was warned that failure to comply with either of these

directives would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. [Id., p. 3] Wardrick

was further advised that, because he had filed over thirty-five civil actions in various federal

-1-

Case: 6:13-cv-00099-DCR Doc #: 3 Filed: 07/30/13 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 22

courts,1 he would be allowed to proceed as a pauper in this case only if he alleged that he faced

imminent danger of serious physical injury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). [Id., n.5]

Twenty-eight days has passed, but Wardrick has failed to comply with any of the Court’s

directives. Litigants proceeding without counsel are not entitled to special consideration when

they fail to follow readily understood orders. Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.

1996); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). Additionally, courts have the

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.” Santiago

v. Crews, No. 3:10CV–P131–S, WL 2960741, at *1 (W.D. Ky. July 26, 2010) (citing Link v.

Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)).

Because Wardrick has not complied with the June 21, 2013 Order, this proceeding will

be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Further, because Wardrick has a documented history of

1Seven of Wardrick’s civil rights cases have been dismissed either as frivolous or for failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. These include: Wardrick v. United States, et al.,
No. 6:11-CV-197-ART (E.D. Ky. 2011) (dismissing Wardrick’s civil rights complaint as frivolous
on initial screening on January 31, 2013) [Record Nos. 11, 12 therein]; aff’d, Wardick v. United
States, No. 12-5228 (6th Cir. April 5, 2013); Wardrick, v. USA, No. 1:11-CV-01996-JFM (D. Md.
2011) (dismissing Wardrick’s complaint alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. §§ 552 and 552a(a)(1), on initial screening on September 11, 2011) [Record Nos. 2, 3
therein]; Wardrick v. Valley Gun Smith, et al., No. 1:07-CV-01747 (D. Md. 2007) (dismissing
Wardrick’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on initial screening on July 31, 2007) [Record Nos. 3, 4
therein]; aff’d, Wardrick v. Valley Gun Smith, et al., No. 07-7245 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007); Wardrick
v. Clerk of Andre M. Davis, No. 1:07-CV-00912-WDQ (D. Md. 2007) (dismissing Wardrick’s §
1983 complaint on April 26, 2007) [Record No. 3, p. 2 therein]; Wardrick v. Clerk of Marvin J.
Garbis, No. 1:07-CV-00913-AMD (D. Md. 2007) (dismissing Wardrick’s 1983 complaint on April
25, 2007) [Record No. 3, p. 2 therein]; Wardrick v. Suzanne Mensh, Clerk, Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, No. 1:07-CV-00798-AMD (D. Md. 2007) [Record No. 3, p. 2 therein]; and
Wardrick v. Lehrman Dotson, et al., No. 1:05-CV-00241-AMD (D. Md. 2005) (granting the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment on September 28, 2005) [Record No. 27, p. 7 therein].

-2-

Case: 6:13-cv-00099-DCR Doc #: 3 Filed: 07/30/13 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 23

filing frivolous actions, and because he has failed to satisfied the statutory requirements of §

1915(g), he will remain liable for the entire $400 filing fee. In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378 (6th Cir.

2002). In Alea, the Sixth Circuit held that dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) for failure to

pay the filing fee does not negate a prisoner’s continuing obligation to pay the full fee. Id. at

381. As the court explained, “not requiring the payment of the full fee would permit a prisoner

subject to the three-strikes rule to continue to file frivolous civil complaints — thus taking much

valuable time away from other non-frivolous litigation — without any consequence beyond their

mere dismissal under § 1915(g).” Id. at 382. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

1.

Plaintiff Robert Wardrick’s Complaint [Record No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack

of prosecution. This matter shall be STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket.

2.

Plaintiff Robert Wardrick is assessed the $400.00 civil filing fee for this action.

The Clerk of the Court shall open an account in Wardrick’s name for receipt of the filing fee and

shall serve a copy of this order and a notice of payment form (Form EDKY 525), complete with

(a) Wardrick’s name, (b) his inmate number, and (c) this case number, upon the warden of

facility where Wardrick is currently confined. Wardrick’s custodian shall submit payments from

his inmate account, as and when funds are deposited therein, until the $400 filing fee has been

paid to the Clerk of this Court.

This 30th day of July, 2013.

-3-