Wesley v. Korust et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution. This dismissal shall NOT count as a strike under 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, so the fee of $400.00 remains due and payable. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/19/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT WESLEY,
#K-63051,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KORUST and
MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-01131-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Wesley filed a document in the
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois that was construed as a complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). In the complaint, Plaintiff claimed that his civil rights were
violated during his incarceration at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Menard is located
within the Southern District. Therefore, on October 21, 2014, the Central District transferred the
case to this District (Doc. 2).
At the time of filing his complaint, Plaintiff neglected to prepay the $400.00 filing
and docketing fee or file a Motion and Affidavit to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (“IFP Motion”). On October 21, 2014, the Clerk of Court in this District informed
Plaintiff of this obligation. Plaintiff was given thirty days to prepay the full filing and docketing
fee or file a properly completed IFP Motion. The Clerk warned Plaintiff that failure to do one or
the other by November 20, 2014, would result in dismissal of the action. The deadline passed
without any communication from Plaintiff.

Page 1 of 2

Therefore,

this

Court

entered

a

notice

of

impending

dismissal

on

November 25, 2014 (Doc. 4). In this order, the Court reminded Plaintiff of his obligation to
prepay the full $400.00 filing and docketing fee or file an IFP Motion. He was given an
extended deadline of December 9, 2014, to respond. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to
take action would result in dismissal of his case for want of prosecution and/or failure to comply
with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This deadline also passed
without any communication from Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is in clear violation of the Court’s Order (Doc. 4). In fact, the Court has
received no communications from Plaintiff in this case. The Court will not allow this matter to
linger indefinitely. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with a
court order and for want of prosecution.

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

See generally Ladien v.

Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).
This dismissal shall NOT count as a “strike” under 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, so the fee of
$400.00 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d
464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 19, 2014
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 2 of 2