Collins v. Kramer et al

Filing 9

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 Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/17/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KIM COLLINS,
# 09873-025,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KRAMER, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-cv-01403-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
On December 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In the complaint, Plaintiff sued Defendants for constitutional violations associated with the use
of video cameras in the cells at the Alton City Jail. (Doc. 1). The complaint did not survive
threshold review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because Plaintiff’s claims that the camera over the
toilet made him “uncomfortable” failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and
because Plaintiff did not properly name any defendants in the body of his complaint. (Doc. 8).
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint on April 25, 2016. (Doc. 8). The dismissal
specifically directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than May 31, 2016. (Doc. 8).
The deadline has now passed. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. He also has 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,

Page 1 of 2

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, 72526 (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 non-meritorious, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 17, 2016
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
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