Wagner v. Bryant et al

Filing 21

ORDER regarding Final Pretrial Confence and directing Wagner to attend. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 12/7/12. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SABRINA WAGNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESSE BRYANT (JESSE’S
PLACE),
Defendant.

No. 11-0032-DRH
ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
On November 13, 2012, the Court set this matter for a final pretrial conference
on December 7, 2012 (Doc. 19). The Court held the Final Pretrial Conference this
day (Doc. 20). Defendant Jesse Bryant, pro se, appeared, however, plaintiff Sabrina
Wagner failed to appear. Thus, the Court RESETS this matter for Final Pretrial
Conference on January 7, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. Ms. Wagner’s presence at the January
7, 2013 conference is MANDATORY.

Mr. Bryant may appear, however, his

attendance is not necessary as explained by the Court during the December 7, 2012
Final Pretrial Conference.
In addition to attending the Final Pretrial Conference on January 7, 2013, Ms.
Wagner must be prepared to explain to the Court why she failed to attend the
December 7, 2012 Final Pretrial Conference. Further, the Court WARNS Ms. Wagner
that the failure to attend the Final Pretrial Conference will result in the dismissal of

Page 1 of 2

her case for failure to prosecute. The Court ADVISES Ms. Wagner of the following:
A party's willful failure to prosecute an action can be an appropriate
basis for dismissal. See, e.g., Bolt v. Loy, 227 F.3d 854, 856 (7th Cir.
2000); Fed. Election Comm'n v. Al Salvi for Senate Comm., 205 F.3d
1015, 1018 (7th Cir. 2000);Williams v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 155 F.3d
853, 857 (7th Cir. 1998). “Once a party invokes the judicial system by
filing a lawsuit, it must abide by the rules of the court; a party can not
decide for itself when it feels like pressing its action and when it feels
like taking a break because „[t]rial judges have a responsibility to
litigants to keep their court calendars as current as humanly possible.?
” GCIU Employer Ret. Fund v. Chi. Tribune Co., 8 F.3d 1195, 1198–99
(7th Cir. 1993)(quoting Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601,
608 (7th Cir. 1986)). Factors relevant to a court's decision to dismiss
for failure to prosecute include the seriousness of the misconduct, the
potential for prejudice to the defendant, and the possible merit of the
suit. Bolt, 227 F.3d at 856; Kovilic Constr. Co. v. Missbrenner, 106
F.3d 768, 769–70 (7th Cir. 1997).

In re Nora, 417 Fed.Appx. 573, 575 (7th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, the Court SETS this matter for Final Pretrial Conference on
January 7, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The Court repeats that the failure to comply with this
Order and to attend the Final Pretrial Conference will result in the Court
dismissing her case for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 7th day of December, 2012.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2012.12.07
15:34:39 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 2 of 2