United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO DILIGENTLY
PURSUE IT UNDER CIVIL LOCAL RULE 41(C)
PAMELA PEPPER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
1, 2019, the plaintiff, representing himself, filed a civil
complaint, dkt. no. 1, and a motion for leave to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee, dkt. no. 2. The Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case because the
plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint.
plaintiff signed his complaint “Devon L. Bean, ”
and listed a prisoner ID number of 1000232 and his address as
the Dodge County Detention Center. Dkt. No. 1 at 7. The same
day that it received the complaint, the clerk's office
mailed the plaintiff a letter informing him that before the
court would consider his motion, he had to file a certified
copy of his institutional trust account statement for the six
months preceding the date he filed his complaint. Dkt. No. 3.
The clerk's office warned the plaintiff that failure to
comply could result in dismissal of the case. Id.
11, 2019, the court received from the plaintiff a document
titled “Inmate Balance History Report-Simple, ”
created on July 7, 2019 and showing that the previous
day-July 6, 2019-the plaintiff had received a deposit of
$175. Dkt. No. 5. This document didn't tell the court
anything about how long the plaintiff had been incarcerated,
or how much money he'd received or spent over the six
months prior to the date on which he filed his complaint
(that is, between January and June 2019).
next day-July 12, 2019-the clerk's office sent the
plaintiff a second letter, addressed to him at the Dodge
County Detention Center. Dkt. No. 5-1. The letter explained
to the plaintiff that he had to file a trust account
statement for the period January through June 2019, and that
if he'd been incarcerated for less than six months, he
needed to provide a statement covering the months he'd
been incarcerated. Id. Seven days later, the court
received a notice from the plaintiff that he'd been
transferred from Dodge to the Federal Correctional
Institution at Oxford, Wisconsin. Dkt. No. 6. Two days after
that, the clerk's office's second letter was returned
to the court as undeliverable. Dkt. No. 7.
August 2, 2019, the court received from the plaintiff a
partial account balance from FCI Oxford, showing his trust
account activity for the month of July 2019. Dkt. No. 8. For
the third time, the clerk's office instructed the
plaintiff that he had to submit a trust account statement
that covered the preceding six months. Dkt. No. 9.
The letter advised the plaintiff to provide statements from
the Milwaukee County Jail and from Oxford (it didn't
mention Dodge). Id. That letter was mailed to the
plaintiff at Oxford on August 5, 2019. Id. The court
has not heard from the plaintiff since it received the August
2, 2019 partial account balance.
court notes that the plaintiff had a federal criminal case
before another judge in this district, United States v.
Bean, 15-cr-146-LA. Records from that case show that as
of December 28, 2018, the plaintiff was in the Milwaukee
County Jail, held on a $3, 500 cash bail. Id. at
Dkt. No. 98. As of May 28, 2019, the plaintiff was in the
Milwaukee County Jail because of a federal detainer.
Id. at Dkt. No. 106. He had been held on that
detainer since January of 2019. Id. at Dkt. No. 108
at 2. On June 25, 2019, Judge Lynn Adelman revoked the
plaintiff's supervised release and sentenced him to serve
nine months in custody with no supervised release to follow.
Id. at Dkt. No. 109. Judge Adelman remanded the
plaintiff to the custody of the U.S. Marshal on that date.
Id. It appears, then, that the plaintiff was in the
Milwaukee County Jail from January 2019 through at least the
end of June and then in Dodge County Detention Center until
he was designated to FCI Oxford. The plaintiff had been in
custody (albeit at two different facilities) for the entire
six months prior to the date he filed his complaint, and
should have filed trust account statements covering that
period. He has not done so.
addition, the plaintiff was released from Oxford on September
24, 2019, according to the Bureau of Prisons inmate locator
web site. https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. He has not provided
the court with a new address. The plaintiff also has filed a
petition for habeas corpus, Bean v. Lucas,
No. 19-cv-738-pp, and has not provided a trust account
statement or advised the court of his new address in that
been five months since the plaintiff filed this complaint. He
has not provided the required trust account information. He
has not advised the court of his current address, despite
being released over two months ago. The court concludes from
these facts that the plaintiff does not wish to continue with
this case. Under Civil L.R. 41(c), “[w]henever it
appears to the Court that the plaintiff is not diligently
prosecuting the action . . ., the court may enter an order of
dismissal with or without prejudice. Any affected party may
petition for reinstatement of the action within 21
court ORDERS that this case is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to
diligently pursue it under Civil L.R. 41(c). The plaintiff
may ask the court to reinstate his case if he ...