Terrell v. Venice Police Department et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice for failure to comply with an order of this Court. This dismissal shall count as one of Terrell's three allotted strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 10/9/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD J. TERRELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VENICE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
UNKNOWN PARTY,
PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
OF MADISON COUNTY IL, and
WILLIAM STARNES,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 3:15-cv-00584-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff Richard Terrell filed a civil rights action against William
Starnes, the public defender assigned to represent him on the charge that led to his incarceration,
as well as the Public Defender’s Office of Madison County, an unknown officer with the Venice
Police Department, and the Venice Police Department itself. (Doc. 1.) Terrell alleged that an
officer with the Venice Police Department negligently investigated his case and that his public
defender failed to adequately defend him. (Id.) On June 22, 2015, the Court dismissed all three
of Terrell’s claims: his claims against Starnes, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Venice
Police Department were dismissed with prejudice, and his claim against the Venice Police officer
was dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 10.) The Court gave Terrell until July 24, 2015, to file
an amended complaint concerning his claim against the unknown officer with the Venice Police
Department. (Id.) Terrell was warned that a failure to file an amended complaint within that
time period “shall result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice.” (Id. at 4.)

Page 1 of 2

Terrell’s deadline has come and gone, and Terrell has not filed an amended complaint.
Accordingly, 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 count as one of Terrell’s
three allotted “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
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. CIV. 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. CIV. 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. CIV. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008). Moreover, if the
appeal is found to be non-meritorious, Plaintiff may incur another “strike.” A proper and timely
motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) will toll the appeal deadline. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 4(a)(4) (listing motions that alter the time for filing an appeal). A Rule 59(e)
motion must be filed no more than 28 days after the entry of the judgment, and this deadline
cannot be extended. Robinson v. Sweeny, 794 F.3d 782, 784 (7th Cir. 2015).
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 9, 2015

______________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Court

Page 2 of 2