Divelbiss, Randin v. Thom

Filing 47

ORDER Plaintiff's motions to reopen these cases, Dkt. 44 and Dkt. 45 in Case No. 23-cv-259-jdp; Dkt. 17 and Dkt. 18 in 23-cv-330-jdp; and Dkt. 12 in Case No. 24-cv-230-jdp, are DENIED. All other pending motions in these cases are DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 11/21/2024. (acd),(ps)

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

RANDIN DIVELBISS,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION and ORDER
23-cv-259-jdp

SERGEANT THOM,
Defendant.
RANDIN DIVELBISS,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION and ORDER

MADISON PUBLIC LIBRARY STAFF
and DIRECTOR GREG MICKELLS,

23-cv-330-jdp

Defendants.
RANDIN DIVELBISS,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION and ORDER

CHIEF SAM WOLLIN, OFFICER SMITH,
and ADAMS POLICE DEPARTMENT,

24-cv-230-jdp

Defendants.
This opinion concerns three cases filed by plaintiff Randin Divelbiss. I dismissed Case
Nos. 23-cv-259-jdp and 23-cv-330-jdp for Divelbiss’s failure to respond to court orders or
motions filed by defendants. Dkt. 41 in the ’259 case. I stayed and closed Case No. 24-cv230-jdp under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because Divelbiss’s claims were
intertwined with his ongoing state-court criminal case. Dkt. 4 in the ’230 case.

Divelbiss seeks to reopen all three cases, but he doesn’t give a persuasive reason for
doing so. He states that “getting mail for these cases has been difficult,” Dkt. 44 in the ’259
case. In previous orders I have documented the difficulty that the court and defendants have
had in communicating with Divelbiss because of his frequent change of addresses. But it is
Divelbiss’s duty to update the court and defendants in all of his cases when he changes mailing
addresses, and he repeatedly failed to do so or otherwise litigate his cases. And he does not
explain why he waited three months after dismissal of the ’259 and ’330 cases to seek
reopening. I will deny his motions to reopen those cases.
I will deny Divelbiss’s motion to reopen the ’230 case because his state-court criminal
case, State v. Divelbiss, Adams County Case No. 2021CM168, has not yet been resolved. He
may move to reopen the ’230 case after the conclusion of the state criminal proceedings,
including all appeals and any relevant state collateral review proceedings. See Simpson v. Rowan,
73 F.3d 134, 139 (7th Cir. 1995).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motions to reopen these cases, Dkt. 44 and Dkt. 45 in Case No. 23-cv259-jdp; Dkt. 17 and Dkt. 18 in 23-cv-330-jdp; and Dkt. 12 in Case No. 24-cv230-jdp, are DENIED.
2. All other pending motions in these cases are DENIED as moot.
Entered November 21, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2