Hooker v. Haynes

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

O’KEEFER D. HOOKER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 20-C-39

DEREEMEYUM HAYNES, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff O’Keefer Hooker filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights were violated. On April 28, 2020, the court ordered Plaintiff to notify the Clerk of Court’s office of any change in his address by May 19, 2020. The court warned Plaintiff that a failure to do so could affect his legal rights. To date, Plaintiff has failed to update his address with the court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute an action or to comply with court orders. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order that he notify the Clerk of Court of any change in his address has stalled the litigation of this case. While no case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute without a warning to the plaintiff, Bolt v. Loy, 227 F.3d 854, 856 (7th Cir. 2000), the court specifically warned Plaintiff that his failure to update his address could result in dismissal. Unfortunately, advanced warning has proven ineffective. Even if Plaintiff did not receive the court’s warning because of the change in his address, plaintiffs “may not hide behind a court’s inability to warn him of impending dismissal when their own actions make such a warning impossible.” In re Ericson, 175 F. App’x 58, 60 (7th Cir. 2006). I am satisfied that the action of dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 27th day of May, 2020. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach, District Judge United States District Court