Sanders v. Springfield Police Department et al

Filing 20

ORDER AND OPINION: This case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint. Parties to bear their own costs. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/16/2017. (MJC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 19 June, 2017 10:07:42 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JOHN M. SANDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPRINGFIELD POLICE
DEPARTMENT, TYLER LYNN,
DAVID DYER, and
ZACHARY ROAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-cv-3007

ORDER AND OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
On January 18, 2016, Plaintiff John Sanders filed his
Complaint against the Springfield Police Department and three of its
officers, alleging Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights
by entering Plaintiff’s residence and seizing Plaintiff’s property
without a warrant and without reasonable cause on February 11,
2014.

On June 15, 2016, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and dismissed Plaintiff’s
Complaint without prejudice (d/e [14]).

The Court permitted

Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint
Page 1 of 7

containing facts sufficient to show that he is entitled to relief.

On

August 18, 2016, the Court ordered that if Plaintiff wished to file an
amended complaint, he must do so by September 19, 2016.

The

Court warned Plaintiff that if Plaintiff did not file an amended
complaint containing facts sufficient to show that he is entitled to
relief by that date, the Court would dismiss and close the case.

On

September 26, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension of time to file an amended complaint and directed Plaintiff
to file his amended complaint by October 19, 2016.
2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to request a hearing.

On October 19,
The Court denied

the motion for a hearing and extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file an
amended complaint to November 14, 2016.

The Court again warned

that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

On October 31,

2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Finalize Relief (d/e [18]).

On

February 22, 2017, the Court extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file an
amended complaint to March 6, 2017, again with the warning of
dismissal for failure to comply.

On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a

Motion to Leave (d/e [19]).

Page 2 of 7

Dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) is an
“extraordinarily harsh sanction” but it is appropriate where the
litigant has shown “a clear pattern of delay or contumacious conduct,
or where other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing.”
Kasalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., 656 F.3d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 2011).
Factors bearing on the appropriateness of dismissal for lack of
prosecution include the frequency of the plaintiff's noncompliance
with deadlines, the court’s issuance of a warning of dismissal if
noncompliance continues, prejudice to the defendant, the possible
merits of the suit, and the social objectives of the litigation.

Id. at

561-62.
Dismissal for a single error is generally improper, but a pattern
of noncompliance may justify dismissal.

Compare Zhou v.

Belanger, 528 F. App’x 618, 622 (7th Cir. 2013) (unpublished)
(affirming dismissal where Plaintiff was hospitalized on day of trial
but repeatedly missed deadlines, failed to comply with court orders
despite warning of dismissal, and failed to substantiate illness before
failing to appear); with Johnson v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 718 F.3d 731,
732-33 (7th Cir. 2013) (reversing dismissal for plaintiff's one-time
failure to appear at status conference, even though judge had warned
Page 3 of 7

that failure to appear would result in dismissal because plaintiff
immediately moved to reinstate and asserted that she had not
received notice of the status conference and the district court did not
explain why less drastic measures would not be helpful).
In this case, the Court has given Plaintiff three extensions of the
time to file for leave to file his amended complaint, extending
Plaintiff’s time to file by just under six months.

The Court warned

Plaintiff three times that failure to file an amended complaint
containing facts sufficient to show he is entitled to relief by the
deadline would result in dismissal of the case.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff

has not filed an amended complaint containing such facts.
Even if the Court treats Plaintiff’s Motion to Finalize Relief or his
Motion for Leave as an amended complaint, the motions do not assert
facts beyond those in the initial Complaint to show Plaintiff is entitled
to relief.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Finalize Relief asserts that Defendants
violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they illegally seized his
property without a warrant from his private residence on February
11, 2014.

Plaintiff states that he told Defendants that they could

not take these actions without a warrant.
Page 4 of 7

Plaintiff attached U.S.

Postal Service Product Tracking & Reporting statements detailing
mail sent to 800 E. Monroe Street in Springfield, Illinois, which
Plaintiff lists as the address for Defendants in his initial Complaint.
Plaintiff also attached a letter he wrote to Mayor Langfelder, asking to
be contacted “to close my complaint-claim with the City of
[Springfield].”

Also attached is a copy of the Court’s text order

extending his time to file an amended complaint to November 14,
2016.

Finally, Plaintiff attached the text of the Fourth Amendment,

a copy of what appears to be Plaintiff’s vehicle registration card, and
what appears to be an aerial photo in Sangamon County on which
Plaintiff identifies his residence.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Leave also asserts that Defendants violated
his Fourth Amendment rights when they illegally seized his property
without a warrant from his private residence on February 11, 2014.
Attached are copies of Plaintiff’s Motion to Finalize Relief, the text of
the Fourth Amendment, what appears to be an aerial photo in
Sangamon County on which Plaintiff identifies his residence, copies
of what appear to be Plaintiff’s vehicle registration card and vehicle
insurance card, a 2016 Property Tax Assessment for Plaintiff’s
landlord, and two letters to Mayor Langfelder: one copy of the letter
Page 5 of 7

attached to the Motion to Finalize Relief and another letter stating
that Defendants entered Plaintiff’s residence without a warrant
illegally seized his vehicle from his private property.

Plaintiff claims

the Springfield Police Department had no authority to take these
actions and asks Mayor Langfelder to contact Plaintiff to settle the
claims.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Finalize Relief and his Motion for Leave do
not contain any facts beyond those included in the initial Complaint
to show that he is entitled to relief.

The initial Complaint asserted

that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by entering
his residential property and illegally seizing his personal property
without a warrant on February 11, 2014.

Nothing else contained in

the motions—the USPS tracking receipts, aerial photos, letters to the
Mayor, vehicle registration and insurance cards, and property tax
assessment of Plaintiff’s landlord—support an assertion that Plaintiff
is entitled to relief.

The motions contain only facts that were set

forth in the initial Complaint, which the Court dismissed for failure to
state a claim on which Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Therefore,

Plaintiff failed to file for leave to file an amended complaint within the
time allotted by the Court.

Despite the Court’s three extensions of
Page 6 of 7

time and three warnings about failure to file, Plaintiff did not set forth
facts establishing a claim for relief.
By consistently failing to file an amended complaint with facts
to show a claim for relief, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)

This case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s

failure to file an amended complaint.

Parties to bear their own

costs.
(2)

All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

(3)

THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

ENTER:

June 16, 2017

FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 7 of 7