Moore, Rodney v. Arnott, Stephanie

W.D. Wisconsin

Moore, Rodney v. Arnott, Stephanie

DecidedNovember 25, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-00831

StatusUnknown

This text of Moore, Rodney v. Arnott, Stephanie (Moore, Rodney v. Arnott, Stephanie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore, Rodney v. Arnott, Stephanie, (W.D. Wis. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RODNEY C. MOORE, Plaintiff, ORDER v. 20-cv-831-wmc STEPHANIE ARNOTT, HEATHER LUHMAN, and BILL LAZAR, Defendants. Plaintiff Rodney C. Moore filed this proposed civil action challenging defendants’ alleged enforcement of certain rules of his supervised release. On September 9, 2020, the clerk of court returned Moore’s unsigned complaint to him for his signature as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). (Dkt. #5). Then, on September 10, 2020, the court entered an order granting Moore’s petition for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (Dkt. #6.) Both the complaint and the court’s order, however, were returned undelivered and “unable to forward,” reflecting that Moore is not at the address provided on his complaint. (Dkt. ##7, 8.) Moore has failed to provide the court with an updated address or otherwise contacted the court. It is not the obligation of this court, including 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 (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.”). Because Moore has failed to provide a current

address, it appears that he has 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 plaintiff Rodney C. Moore is

DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Relief from this order may be granted upon a showing of good cause. Entered this 24th day of November, 2020. BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RODNEY C. MOORE, Plaintiff, ORDER v. 20-cv-831-wmc STEPHANIE ARNOTT, HEATHER LUHMAN, and BILL LAZAR, Defendants. Plaintiff Rodney C. Moore filed this proposed civil action challenging defendants’ alleged enforcement of certain rules of his supervised release. On September 9, 2020, the clerk of court returned Moore’s unsigned complaint to him for his signature as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). (Dkt. #5). Then, on September 10, 2020, the court entered an order granting Moore’s petition for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (Dkt. #6.) Both the complaint and the court’s order, however, were returned undelivered and “unable to forward,” reflecting that Moore is not at the address provided on his complaint. (Dkt. ##7, 8.) Moore has failed to provide the court with an updated address or otherwise contacted the court. It is not the obligation of this court, including 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 (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.”). Because Moore has failed to provide a current

address, it appears that he has 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 plaintiff Rodney C. Moore is

DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Relief from this order may be granted upon a showing of good cause. Entered this 24th day of November, 2020. BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moore, Rodney v. Arnott, Stephanie, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-rodney-v-arnott-stephanie-wiwd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack