From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gilman v. Correct Care Sols.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Sep 26, 2017
17-cv-7-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 26, 2017)

Opinion

17-cv-7-wmc

09-26-2017

MARK ALLEN GILMAN, Plaintiff, v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al. and DANE COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff Mark Allen Gilman filed this proposed civil action alleging that Correct Care Solutions and the Dane County Jail violated his constitutional rights. On August 18, 2017, an order was entered directing Gilman to file an amended complaint. The court's order has been returned undelivered, reflecting that Gilman is not at the address he provided on this complaint. (Dkt. #9.) Gilman has failed to provide the court with an updated address.

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."). Plaintiff has clearly failed to provide the court with an accurate, current address. Because plaintiff has failed to provide a current address, it appears that he has abandoned this lawsuit.

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 Mark Allen Gilman is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Plaintiff is advised that relief from this order may be granted upon a showing of good cause.

Entered this 26th day of September, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

WILLIAM M. CONLEY

District Judge


Summaries of

Gilman v. Correct Care Sols.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Sep 26, 2017
17-cv-7-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 26, 2017)
Case details for

Gilman v. Correct Care Sols.

Case Details

Full title:MARK ALLEN GILMAN, Plaintiff, v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al. and DANE…

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

Date published: Sep 26, 2017

Citations

17-cv-7-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 26, 2017)