Johnson v. Brooklyn, IL et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice for failure to comply with an order of this Court. This dismissal shall not count as one of Plaintiff's three allotted strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/24/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LENNIL L. JOHNSON,
#18690,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN, IL,
VERA GLASPER BANKS,
STEVEN MITCHELL,
DEAN ANDERSON,
CIERRA CALDWELL,
and CHRISTOPHER HEATHERLY,
Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00463-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
On April 28, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) against the Village of Brooklyn, Illinois, and five of its officials.
Along with the complaint, he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2),
which the Court denied on May 19, 2015 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff was ordered to prepay the full filing
fee of $400.00 for this action, if he intended to proceed with his claims. Plaintiff paid this full
amount, and the Court screened his complaint.
On July 9, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Rules 8
and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 11). However, the dismissal was without
prejudice, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before
August 13, 2015 (Doc. 11, pp. 8-9). He was warned that failure to file a properly amended
complaint by that deadline would result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice.

Page 1 of 3

The deadline has now passed. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. He has
also failed to request an extension of the deadline for doing so.
As a result, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with an order
of this Court. 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 one
of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff’s pending motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 4) is
hereby DENIED as MOOT.
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, because Plaintiff has “struck out” and has not shown that he is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury, this Court will not grant him permission to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. Finally, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur
another “strike.” A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be
filed no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day
deadline cannot be extended.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 24, 2015
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge,
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3