Stevenson v. Madison County Jail

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. This dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff's three allotted strikes under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/28/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVEN RAY STEVENSON, # 32211,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MADISON COUNTY JAIL,
and MADISON COUNTY JAIL STAFF,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-910-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for case management. Plaintiff filed this action on August
19, 2014, claiming that he was denied medical attention after he was injured at the Madison
County Jail (Doc. 1). On September 10, 2014, this Court entered an order dismissing the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted (Doc. 7). Plaintiff was given until October 15, 2014, to file an amended complaint if he
wished to further pursue his claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and the Clerk
mailed him a blank complaint form for his use in preparing his amended pleading. Plaintiff was
warned that if he failed to submit an amended complaint, this case would be dismissed with
prejudice, and the dismissal would count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff’s October 15, 2014, deadline has come and gone, and Plaintiff has failed to
respond in any way. This action is therefore subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure
to prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); see generally James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672,
681 (7th Cir. 2005); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Lucien v. Breweur, 9
Page 1 of 2

F.3d 26, 29 (7th Cir. 1993) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is presumptively with prejudice).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE THIS CASE and enter judgment accordingly.
This dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the
action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, his notice of appeal must be filed with this
Court within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). A motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal.
See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C). 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, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another
“strike.” A timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 1 may toll the
30-day appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 28, 2014
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

1

A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of
the judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e).
Page 2 of 2