Ellison v. Hodge et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff BENNIE K. ELLISON is restricted from filing any new civil actions in this Court until such time as his outstanding filing fees in this district have been paid in full. This filing restr iction does not extend to a notice of appeal from this order, to the filing of any petition for a writ of habeas corpus, nor to pleadings filed as a defendant in another criminal or civil case. Any papers submitted to the Court by Plaintiff while this filing restriction is in place shall be accompanied by a copy of this order. Should Plaintiff attempt to file any new action in this Court, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return any documents submitted in violation of this order to the Plaintiff unfiled. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/18/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BENNIE K. ELLISON,
No. R00575,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARC HODGE,
VAUGHN,
MUSGRAVE,
PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, and
MAILROOM,
Defendants.

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

CIVIL NO. 13-cv-00453-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Bennie K. Ellison is in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), currently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center. Plaintiff brought this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was dismissed by Order dated June
10, 2013, as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to disclose his long litigation history, which
included a multitude of “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for filing frivolous lawsuits (Doc. 7).
Plaintiff was directed to show cause in writing why the Court should not bar him from
filing any further papers in this Court until such time as he pays in full the $400.00 district court
filing fee due in this particular case, as well as the $350.00 filing fee due in Ellison v. Quinn, No.
13-cv-168-MJR (Doc. 7). Ellison did not timely respond, but somewhat belatedly filed a “Notice
of Filing” “motion as to What? Doesn’t Constitute a Ban in the Court” [sic] (Doc. 8).
Ellison’s notice/motion merely asserts that the Court has knowledge of Ellison being
kidnapped by state officials (meaning he was arrested, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned),

1

and has failed to correct the situation. He does not seek any specific relief, and the Court’s prior
order directing him to show cause explained that a filing ban was proposed (additional details are
supplied below).
Ellison has failed to address his failure to notify the Court of his litigation history and
failure to pay filing fees owed to the Court. Ellison has only reasserted the gist of his civil rights
action. The Court remains convinced that the dismissal of the action was warranted. Because
Plaintiff has not paid the outstanding fees he owes the Court, and has failed to show adequate
cause why the Court should not restrict him from filing future documents until his fees are paid
in full, this Court finds it necessary to so restrict Plaintiff. Clearly monetary sanctions are not
enough to deter Plaintiff from filing future claims with this Court, and he has shown little to no
effort to pay that debt. Thus, to simply add to that debt in an effort to cease Plaintiff’s abuse of
the Court is useless.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Notice/Motion (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff BENNIE K. ELLISON is restricted from
filing any new civil actions in this Court until such time as his outstanding filing fees in this
district have been paid in full. This filing restriction does not extend to a notice of appeal from
this order, to the filing of any petition for a writ of habeas corpus, nor to pleadings filed as a
defendant in another criminal or civil case. Plaintiff may seek modification or recission of this
order, by filing a motion in this Court no earlier than two years from the date of entry of this
order. Any papers submitted to the Court by Plaintiff while this filing restriction is in place shall
be accompanied by a copy of this order.
Should Plaintiff attempt to file any new action in this Court, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to return any documents submitted in violation of this order to the Plaintiff unfiled.

2

If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this order, he may file a notice of appeal with this court
within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). If Plaintiff does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724,
725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockisch,
133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). Moreover, because Plaintiff has “struck out,” this Court will
not grant him permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Finally, if the appeal is not
found to be meritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another “strike.”

A timely motion filed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 18, 2014
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

3