Perket, Scot v. La Crosse County Police Department

Filing 13

ORDER granting defendants' motions to dismiss. In light of plaintiff's failure to prosecute, the clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in defendants' favor and close these matters. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 8/21/2017. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SCOT PERKET,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Case No. 16-cv-362-wmc
LA CROSSE COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

SCOT PERKET,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Case No. 16-cv-507-wmc
ST. FRANCIS OF MAYO HEALTH CARE
LA CROSSE (COUNTY), et al.
Defendants.

SCOT PERKET,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Case No. 16-cv-525-wmc
LA CROSSE COUNTY JAIL DEPUTIES, et al.
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Scot Alan Perket has filed 13 lawsuits since May 2016, alleging a variety
of wrongs against numerous, varied defendants. In each of the cases captioned above, most or
all of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss on various grounds. (Case No. 16-cv-362wmc, dkt. # 8; Case No. 16-cv-507-wmc, dkts. #8, #13, #20; Case No. 16-cv-525, dkts. #9,
#16.)

On March 21, 2017, in light of Perket’s failure to submit anything in these three cases
beyond his complaint and filing fee, the court entered an order to show cause in each, directing
Perket to explain whether his complete failure to respond to these motions occurred for good
reason, as well as requiring his prompt filing of oppositions to defendants’ many pending
motions to dismiss. The court further warned Perket that failure to respond would likely result
in the court granting defendants’ pending motions and dismissal of these actions due to
Perket’s failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
When the court’s March 21 order was returned as undeliverable, the clerk of court
called him on three different occasions to update his address and inform him about the court’s
order. (See dkt. #19.) However, each attempt was unsuccessful because Perket did not answer
his phone and his voicemail was full. While the court surmises that Perket may be facing
personal and financial difficulties, these lawsuits were his responsibility to prosecute, and his
continued inaction confirms the court’s impression that he has abandoned them.
Since his deadline to show cause of April 3, 2017, is long since passed, and Perket has
filed nothing (nor made any other discernable effort to contact the court) despite the clerk of
court’s notable efforts to help and reach out to him, dismissal is now unavoidable. As such,
the court will grant all pending motions to dismiss, entering judgment in defendants’ favor and
closing these matters.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss in Case No. 16-cv-362-wmc (dkt.
#8), Case No. 16-cv-507-wmc, (dkts. #8, #13, #20) and Case No. 16-cv-525-wmc (dkts. #9,
#16) are GRANTED. In light of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, the clerk of court is directed
to enter judgment in defendants’ favor and close these matters.
Entered this 21st day of August , 2017.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3