Blair v. Schlitz et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/25/2017 DISMISSING action without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. (cc: all counsel, via mail to DeAndre L. Blair)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DEANDRE L. BLAIR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-1563-JPS

CHRISTOPHER SCHMALING,
Defendant.

ORDER

During the period relevant to his complaint, Plaintiff was an inmate
at the Racine County Jail. See (Docket #1). On January 9, 2017, the Court
screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed all Defendants save Christopher
Schmaling (“Schmaling”), the Racine County Sheriff. (Docket #9). The Court
permitted several of Plaintiff’s claims to proceed past screening, but noted
that Plaintiff had not named anyone personally responsible for the challenged
conduct. Id. at 9. Thus, the Court ordered service of the complaint on
Schmaling, who, as sheriff, could engage in discovery with Plaintiff in an
effort to identify the responsible parties. Id. at 9–10; see also Donald v. Cook
County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548, 556 (7th Cir. 1996).
On February 21, 2017, after Schmaling answered the complaint, the
Court issued an order giving Plaintiff two months to file an amended
complaint identifying the individuals responsible for the conduct at issue in
this case. (Docket #20 1–3). The Court instructed Plaintiff to use the discovery
methods available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to propound
discovery requests on Schmaling for the purpose of identifying the relevant
parties. Id. The Court warned that if Plaintiff did not identify the proper

defendants by April 14, 2017, the action would be dismissed without further
notice. Id. at 3.
The April 14, 2017 deadline has passed and the Court has not received
an amended complaint or any other communication from Plaintiff. Unlike the
plaintiff in Donald, who made efforts to amend his complaint and
communicate with the Court about identifying the proper defendants, here
Plaintiff has totally ignored the Court’s order. See Donald, 95 F.3d at 556.
Without cooperation of any kind from Plaintiff, the Court is not inclined to
undertake any of the other methods suggested in Donald for helping him
identify the proper parties. See id. Further, the Court warned Plaintiff that
failure to file an amended complaint within the prescribed period would
result in dismissal of this action. See Fischer v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 446 F.3d
663, 665 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not heeded the Court’s warning and, as
a result, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for his failure to
prosecute the same. See Civ. L. R. 41(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of April, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2