Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Savada v. Meister, 19-C-351. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin Number: infdco20200113f30 Visitors: 49
Filed: Jan. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2020
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH , District Judge . Plaintiff Connor Savada, who was housed at the Lincoln County Jail at the time of filing, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. In particular, Plaintiff asserts Defendant Jason Meister used excessive force against him. On December 9, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. In his motion, Defendant asserts that he mailed a set of interrogatories and requests for productio
More

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Connor Savada, who was housed at the Lincoln County Jail at the time of filing, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. In particular, Plaintiff asserts Defendant Jason Meister used excessive force against him. On December 9, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. In his motion, Defendant asserts that he mailed a set of interrogatories and requests for production to Plaintiff regarding the incident in the complaint on October 4, 2019. When Plaintiff failed to respond and Defendant made a subsequent attempt to contact Plaintiff to obtain a response to his discovery requests, the letter was returned as undeliverable as a result of Plaintiff being released from Lincoln County Jail. Defendant researched additional possible addresses for Plaintiff and found one on CCAP. But when Defendant attempted to send a follow-up letter to that address, it was returned as undeliverable. Defendant served the instant motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff at four different addresses. R. 24. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion for summary judgment, and the time to do so has passed.

It is not the job of the attorney for the defendant to conduct a search for Plaintiff's current address. Plaintiff has previously been warned that he must notify the clerk of court of any change of address and that failure to do so could result in dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 6 at 9. Failure to prosecute and to comply with a court's orders are grounds for dismissal. See Civil L.R. 41. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide the clerk of court with his current address and had previously been warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal, the court orders that this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and comply with the court's orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer