Harris v. Hallisy et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 11/13/2013. Case DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (cc: via US mail to Brian Harris at Kenosha County Detention Center)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

BRIAN IVY SCOTT HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No.

13-CV-471

ROBERT HALLISY, DAVID BETH,
and JOHN MORRISEY,
Defendants.

ORDER

On June 11, 2013, the Court screened the complaint and found that, while the
allegations implicated Harris’ rights under the Eighth Amendment based on a deliberate
indifference to a serious medical needs claim, he had not named proper defendants. The
Court granted the plaintiff additional time to file an amended complaint naming proper
defendants. The plaintiff subsequently filed a document titled Amended Complaint but the
filing was deficient and failed to state a claim. The Court therefore granted the plaintiff
additional time to file second amended complaint containing allegations against specific
defendants. When the plaintiff did not file a timely second amended complaint, the Court
allowed for additional time until September 18, 2013, to file the pleading. The Court also
advised that failure to timely file an amended pleading might result in dismissal of this case.
On September 10, 2013, the plaintiff filed a document titled Amended

Complaint pursuant to Civil Local Rule 41(b). He asks that he be allowed to continue this
case against Kenosha County. The plaintiff goes on to describe an alleged procedural due
process violation based on his probation officer’s revocation of his probation. It appears that
the plaintiff wishes to proceed on a claim based on these allegations, which are unrelated to
the original complaint allegations. However, any new claims must be brought in a separate
action.
In three separate orders, the Court has directed the plaintiff to file a
comprehensive amended complaint based on his medical care allegations. He has failed to
do so. The plaintiff has also been warned that failure to file an amended complaint might
result in dismissal of this action. The latest filing does not set forth a reason why the plaintiff
failed to comply with the Court’s orders.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment
dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and this action.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 13th day of November, 2013.
SO ORDERED,

HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U. S. District Judge

2