Bowlby v. Saline County Sheriff's Dept.

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Plaintiff will not be allotted a strike under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 12/3/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRIAN K. BOWLBY,
No. B88543,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SALINE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-00773-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff Brian K. Bowlby, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center,
initiated this action for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Doc. 1). Bowlby alleged that he was wrongfully indicted, arrested, and convicted of
predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and criminal sexual abuse. According to the
complaint, Bowlby’s direct appeal was still pending when the action was filed.
The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff was given a window of
opportunity to file an amended complaint. But the Court observed at that time that the complaint
appeared to be premature, and the proper avenue for relief might be via a habeas corpus petition
(Doc. 5). Bowlby was forewarned that, if he failed to file an amended pleading, final judgment
would be entered. The Court also noted that the obligation to pay the filing fee was incurred
when the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464,
467 (7th Cir. 1998).

Page 1 of 2

Despite requesting and receiving two extensions of time (see Docs. 7-10), Bowlby has
failed to file an amended pleading, and it appears that he has abandoned this action. Although
dismissal would usually be with prejudice, given the somewhat muddled nature of the case, in its
discretion, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice, and a “strike” will not be assessed
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff will not be allotted
a strike under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Judgment shall enter, and this case will be
closed. Nonetheless, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the filing fee.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 3, 2014

___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2