Gill v. Kedzierski et al
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 09/16/2022. ORDERING by October 17, 2022, plaintiff must respond to this order in writing and inform the court whether he intends to proceed in this litigation. If he does not respond by that date, or if t his order is returned as undeliverable, I will dismiss this case without prejudice for the plaintiffs failure to prosecute. The clerk shall send a copy of the screening order (ECF No. 6 ) and the defendants Answer (ECF No. 10 ) to Region Unit Agent 04 10 02, 1251 Jacobsen Rd, Suite A, Neenah, WI 54956 (cc: all counsel and mailed copy of order, DKT Nos. 6 and 10 to pro se party in Neenah, WI)(bx)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHARLES B. GILL, SR.,
Case No. 21-C-1154
ANNA KEDZIERSKI, et al.,
On July 20, 2022, I screened pro se plaintiff Charles B. Gill, Sr.’s amended
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and allowed him to proceed on First Amendment
claims against the defendants. ECF No. 6. On September 15, 2022, the defendants filed
an Answer to the complaint. ECF No. 10. Ordinarily, I would enter a scheduling order with
deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. But on August 1, 2022, the copy of the
screening order sent to the plaintiff at the Drug Abuse Correctional Center was returned
to the court as undeliverable. ECF No. 7. A stamp on the returned envelope says, “Return
to Sender – Not Deliverable as Addressed – Unable to Forward.” Id. A search of the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections offender search by the plaintiff’s DOC number
shows the plaintiff was released onto extended supervision on April 8, 2022.
See https://appsdoc.wi.gov/lop/home/home (DOC #656289).
As I advised the plaintiff in the screening order, “it is his responsibility to promptly
notify the court if he is released from custody or transferred to a different institution. The
plaintiff’s failure to keep the court advised of his whereabouts may result in the dismissal
of this case without further notice.” ECF No. 6 at 13. The plaintiff has not provided his
present address to the court in writing or via phone call. But because the plaintiff did not
receive the screening order, I will not dismiss his case at this time. I instead will send the
Case 2:21-cv-01154-NJ Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2 Document 12
screening order and the defendants’ responsive complaint to the plaintiff’s extended
supervision agent in Neenah, Wisconsin. Within thirty days, by October 17, 2022, he
must file with the court a letter explaining whether he wishes to prosecute this lawsuit. If
the court does not hear from the plaintiff by then, or if this order is returned as
undeliverable, I will dismiss this case without prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute it. See Civil L. R. 41(c) (“Whenever it appears to the Court that the plaintiff is
not diligently prosecuting the action . . . the Court may enter an order of dismissal with or
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that by October 17, 2022, the plaintiff must
respond to this order in writing and inform the court whether he intends to proceed in this
litigation. If he does not respond by that date, or if this order is returned as undeliverable,
I will dismiss this case without prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
The clerk shall send a copy of the screening order (ECF No. 6) and the defendant’s
Answer (ECF No. 10) to Region Unit Agent 04 10 02, 1251 Jacobsen Rd, Suite A,
Neenah, WI 54956.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 16th day of September, 2022.
United States District Judge
Case 2:21-cv-01154-NJ Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2 Document 12
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?