From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oseth v. Vernon Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Sep 19, 2018
16-cv-704-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 19, 2018)

Opinion

16-cv-704-wmc

09-19-2018

DENNIS OSETH and NADIA NADIAK, Plaintiffs, v. VERNON COUNTY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiffs Dennis Oseth and Nadia Nadiak filed this proposed civil action alleging violation of their constitutional rights by various Vernon County public officials. On September 21, 2017, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' request to include certain documents for consideration but denying their request for assistance in recruiting counsel. The court's order, however, has been returned because it appears that plaintiffs have moved but failed to provide an updated address. (Dkt. ##16-17.) The clerk of court's efforts to locate plaintiffs have been unsuccessful.

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 communication with the court during the pendency of his lawsuit."). Plaintiffs failed to provide the court with an accurate, current address. Since they have failed to provide a current address, it appears that they have abandoned 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 plaintiffs Dennis Oseth and Nadia Nadiak is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Relief from this order may be granted upon a showing of good cause.

Entered this 19th day of September, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

WILLIAM M. CONLEY

District Judge


Summaries of

Oseth v. Vernon Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Sep 19, 2018
16-cv-704-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 19, 2018)
Case details for

Oseth v. Vernon Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS OSETH and NADIA NADIAK, Plaintiffs, v. VERNON COUNTY, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Date published: Sep 19, 2018

Citations

16-cv-704-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 19, 2018)