LaLa v. Walton

Filing 34

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for failure to keep the Court informed of his whereabouts. The Court closes the file. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/1/17. (klh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CHARLES M. LALA, Petitioner, vs. Civil No. 14-cv-657-DRH-CJP THOMAS B. SMITH, Respondent. MEMORANDUM and ORDER HERNDON, District Judge: Petitioner Charles M. LaLa was an inmate in the BOP at the time he filed his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. According to the website of the BOP, petitioner was released from BOP custody in December 2016. See,, visited on April 26, 2017. Petitioner has not notified the Court of release from the BOP or of his new address. In its order on preliminary review, the Court warned petitioner of the consequences of failure to keep the Court informed of his whereabouts: Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk (and the opposing party) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the pendency of this action. This notification shall be done in writing and not later than seven (7) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to provide such notice may result in dismissal of this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Doc. 5, pp. 2-3. In addition, a recent Notice of Impending Dismissal, Doc. 33, imparted the 1 same warning. The Notice ordered petitioner to notify the Court of his current address by April 24, 2017, or face dismissal of this action. Clearly, petitioner has not kept the Court informed of his whereabouts and has failed to follow the Court’s order. This Court gave petitioner the “warning shot” required by Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 755 (7th Cir. 1993) in Docs. 5 & 33. Petitioner has failed to diligently pursue this case. Pursuant to Johnson v. Chicago Board of Education, 718 F. 3d 731 (7th Cir. 2013), the Court has considered whether a sanction short of dismissal of this case might be fruitful, and finds that it would not. Conclusion This cause of action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Herndon 2017.05.01 15:47:29 -05'00' DATE: May 1, 2017 United States District Court 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?