Hanson, Ty v. Rothschild PD "Lt Otrowski" et al

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing this case without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute it. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/17/2016. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

TY A. HANSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KEVIN OTROWSKI, MARATHON COUNTY JAIL
STAFF, NURSES, and SUPERVISORS,

15-cv-194-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Ty A. Hanson, appearing pro se, filed this civil action alleging that
defendants failed to properly treat his injuries following a car accident when he was taken
into custody. I screened the case and concluded that plaintiff’s complaint did not comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Dkt. 12. I gave plaintiff an opportunity to amend the
complaint to better explain his claims, but I indicated that if plaintiff failed to respond, I
would dismiss his case. Id.
Plaintiff did not respond to the order. Instead, on July 25, 2016, the order sent to
plaintiff was returned “No Forward Address.” Dkt. 13. The clerk of court contacted plaintiff’s
probation officer, but she advised that plaintiff has absconded from supervision.
It is not the obligation of either this court or the clerk’s office to search for litigants.
Rather, it is the litigant’s responsibility to advise the court of any change to his contact
information. See Casimir v. Sunrise Fin., Inc., 299 F. App’x 591, 593 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming
the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion where movants claimed they did not receive notice of
summary judgment due to a house fire, adding that “all litigants, including pro se litigants,
are responsible for maintaining communication with the court”); see also Soliman v. Johanns,
412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[A] litigant who invokes the processes of the federal

courts is responsible for maintaining communication with the court during the pendency of
his lawsuit.”). Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with a current address, and it appears
that, as a result, he has not received the July 12, 2016, order. Accordingly, this case will be
dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute it.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute it. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and
close this case.
Entered August 17, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2