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)

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