Nitz v. Hulick

Filing 95

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 12/19/2022. (arm)

Case 3:07-cv-00520-DWD Document 95 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #263

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD C. NITZ,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHRISTINE BRANNON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 07-cv-520-DWD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
DUGAN, District Judge:
On July 20, 2007, Petitioner Richard C. Nitz, through counsel, filed his Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the
conditions of his confinement (Doc. 2). On January 9, 2008, this case was stayed to allow
Petitioner to exhaust his state court remedies (Doc. 23). Thereafter, Petitioner was
directed to file a motion to lift the stay in this matter within 30-days after the conclusion
of his state court proceedings (Doc. 33), and to file regular status reports with the Court.
Petitioner continues to be represented by Counsel.
In October 2020, this case was reassigned to the undersigned (Doc. 75). At that
time, Petitioner was in the process of appealing the state court’s denial of his
postconviction petition following a limited order of remand (Doc. 77). On March 31, 2022,
the Illinois Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for leave to appeal (Doc. 91).
Despite this denial, the parties did not file a timely status report with the Court, so the

1

Case 3:07-cv-00520-DWD Document 95 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #264

Court directed the parties to file a status report by August 5, 2022, detailing the parties’
positions on the current stay of proceedings (Id.).
On August 5, 2022, Respondent filed a status report (Doc. 92). Respondent asked
that the Court lift the stay of proceedings and allow Petitioner an opportunity to file an
amended habeas petition (Doc. 91). However, Petitioner’s counsel asked that the Court
grant her additional time to confer with her client (Id.). The Court thus set a deadline of
November 30, 2022, for Petitioner’s counsel to confer with her client and report to the
Court (Doc. 93). Specifically, the Court directed Petitioner “to file an amended habeas
petition or other notice with the Court indicating whether Petitioner intends to proceed
with his petition” by November 30, 2022 (Id.).

The Court did not receive any

communications or filings from Petitioner or his counsel by that deadline.
Having received no further filings or communications from Petitioner, the Court
entered its Show Cause Order on December 1, 2022, directing Petitioner to show cause in
writing, by December 15, 2022, why his petition should not be dismissed (Doc. 94). In
that order, the Court warned that Petitioner that a failure to respond to the Order to Show
Cause could result in dismissal of this action (Id.). Petitioner has not responded to the
Court’s Order, and the time for doing so has now passed.
To date, the Court has received no further correspondence concerning this matter.
The Court will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. Accordingly, this action shall
be dismissed without prejudice for a failure to comply with a Court Order (Doc. 94) and
a failure to prosecute his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); James v. McDonald's Corp., 417

2

Case 3:07-cv-00520-DWD Document 95 Filed 12/19/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #265

F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v.
Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).
This action is therefore DISMISSED, without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2022

DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

3