Morris v. Houston et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for failure to comply with an order of this Court. This dismissal shall 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 6/20/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVEN LEROY MORRIS,
No. 18164-045
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOUSTON,
BRADLY,
CROSS,
SMITH
SCHMITT,
LAUGHLAN,
MACHINO,
WALKER, and
UNKNOWN PARTIES,
Defendant

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

Case No. 15-cv-1367-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In the complaint, Plaintiff sued Defendants because they allegedly delayed his
transfer to another prison and subjected to him cruel and unusual punishment in the
Secure Housing Unit (SHU). (Doc. 1). The complaint did not survive threshold review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to state
colorable constitutional claims.

(Doc. 11).

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the

complaint on January 15, 2016. (Doc. 11). The order specifically directed Plaintiff to file
an amended complaint no later than February 8, 2016. (Doc. 8). The deadline has now

Page 1 of 3

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 state a claim
upon which relief may be granted and 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
Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he may file a notice of appeal with this
Court within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. 4(A)(4). 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. 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. Jockish, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). 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) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. 1 FED. R.
APP. 4(a)(4).
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment
accordingly.

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 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 20, 2016
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States Chief District Judge

Page 3 of 3