Bates v. Zimdars et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/7/2018 DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Don M. Bates, III)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DON M. BATES, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-CV-50-JPS

KORY ZIMDARS, VICKI SEIBELGARVEY, CHRISTINA MINNETI, and
DONNA HARRIS,

ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated in
various ways related to his conditions of extended supervision arising
from a Wisconsin state conviction. (Docket #1). On February 12, 2018, the
Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it, noting that Plaintiff
had not alleged sufficient facts for his claims to avoid the proscriptions
described in Henderson v. Bryant, 606 F. App’x 301 (7th Cir. 2015). (Docket
#9 at 4–10). However, the Court granted Plaintiff until March 5, 2018 to file
an amended complaint addressing those deficiencies. Id. at 9. He was
warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in
dismissal of this action. Id.
The March 5 deadline has passed and the Court has not received an
amended complaint or any other communication from Plaintiff besides a
notification that his address changed. (Docket #10). Plaintiff has not
heeded the Court’s warning that failure to file an amended complaint
within the prescribed period would result in dismissal of this action. As a

result, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for his failure
to prosecute the same. See Civ. L. R. 41(c); Fischer v. Cingular Wireless, LLC,
446 F.3d 663, 665 (7th Cir. 2006).1
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 7th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Plaintiff’s change of address, from prison to a private residence, does not
affect this result. The Court’s screening order was mailed to his new address on
February 13, 2018 and was not returned. There is no indication that Plaintiff did
not receive a copy of the order. Moreover, the Court warned Plaintiff that it is his
responsibility to maintain a current address for purposes of receiving documents
from the Court. (Docket #9 at 13). Shirking this duty would not be a reason to
forgive Plaintiff’s tardiness.
1

2