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)

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, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/, 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