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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?