Thompson v. Kramer et al
Filing
10
ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice 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 2/3/2016. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SHAWN THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SGT. KRAMER, ROBERT DEWALL,
EVAN BAILEY, ROBERT ROSS,
COLLEEN MOORE,
and UNKNOWN PARTY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-cv-01407-MJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
This case was severed from an action filed in this District by nine detainees at Alton City
Jail (“Jail”). See Collier et al. v. Kramer et al., Case No. 15-cv-674-SMY (S.D. Ill. 2015)
(original action). Plaintiffs brought the original action to complain about their lack of access to
the courts and their conditions of confinement at the Jail. (Doc. 1, original action). In an Order
dated December 22, 2015, the Court concluded that joinder of the parties and their claims in a
single action was not appropriate. (Id.) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)-(b), 21; Chavez v. Illinois
State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 632 (7th Cir. 2001)).
Each plaintiff was required to pursue his claims in a separate action. (Doc. 1, original
action). Because the original complaint failed to state any claim upon which relief could be
granted, the Court ordered each plaintiff to file a “First Amended Complaint” in his newlysevered case no later than January 25, 2016. The Court warned each plaintiff that his case would
be dismissed with prejudice and a “strike,” if he “fail[ed] to file his First Amended Complaint
within the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in th[e] Order.” (Id. at 13)
Page 1 of 3
(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v.
Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994)).
This severed case was opened to address the claims of Plaintiff Shawn Thompson. Like
all other plaintiffs in the original action, he was required to file a “First Amended Complaint” in
his newly-severed case on or before January 25, 2016. The deadline has now passed. Plaintiff
has not filed his amended complaint. He has also not requested 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. Id.; 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).
Further, Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time
the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
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, 133 F.3d at 467. Moreover, 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
Page 2 of 3
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 3, 2016
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief District Judge
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?