Krezinski, David v. Hardel, Brad et al

Filing 8

ORDER that the complaint filed by plaintiff David Krezinski is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 12/8/2017. (jef),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DAVID KREZINSKI, Plaintiff, ORDER v. 16-cv-391-wmc BRAD HARDEL, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff David Krezinski filed this proposed civil action alleging several violations of his constitutional rights at the Waupaca County Jail. On December 1, 2017, mail sent to Krezinski at the Waupaca County Jail in his other case, Krezinski v. Butler, No. 16-cv-298-wmc (W.D. Wis. Dec. 1, 2017), was returned to the court undelivered because Krezinski was released from custody at the Waupaca County Jail and failed to provide the court an updated address. See id. (dkt. # 18.) As also explained in the ‘298 case, 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 or her contact information. See Casimir v. Sunrise Fin., Inc., 299 F. App’x 591, 593, 2008 WL 4922422 (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 1 communication with the court during the pendency of his lawsuit.”). Krezinski has clearly failed to provide the court with an accurate, current address. Because Krezinski has failed to provide a current address or otherwise been in contact with the court about his case, it appears that he has abandoned prosecution of this case. Accordingly, under the inherent power necessarily vested in a court to manage its own docket, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Ohio River Co. v. Carrillo, 754 F.2d 236, 238 n.5 (7th Cir. 1984). ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the complaint filed by plaintiff David Krezinski is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Relief from this order may be granted upon a showing of good cause. Entered this 8th day of December, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ _______________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge 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?