Jones v. Sparta Community Hospital et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12/6/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RUFUS EDWARD JONES,

Plaintiff,
vs.
SPARTA CMTY. HOSPITAL,
SA GODINEZ,
CHARLENE JONES,
FLAGG,
AUSTIN,
WAGGONER,
CITY OF SPARTA ILL.,
ANDY DAHLEM,
ANDY REEL,
GARY STEELE,
DANIEL HANNA,
JEREMY WALKER,
DAVID SMITH,
JAMES KELLY, and
CRYSTAL DOE,
Defendants.

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

CIVIL NO. 16-cv-00386-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This action came before the Court on Plaintiff Rufus Jones’s Complaint filed April 7,
2016 (Doc. 1). On June 1, 2016, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim
and ordered Jones to file an amended complaint within 35 days (by July 7, 2016) (Doc. 5). In its
June 1st Order the Court clearly stated that in order to proceed on his claims Jones would need to
tender additional information to identify specifically how each individual defendant violated his
rights (Doc. 5 at 2-4). The Order instructed that Jones’s claims need not be artfully pled, but that
he did need to make more than bare conclusory legal allegations to state a sufficient claim (Id.).
Page 1 of 2

In the June 1, 2016 Order, the Court expressly notified Jones that it was not acceptable to
file piecemeal amendments or additions to his original complaint, and that the original complaint
would be dismissed in its entirety (Doc. 5 at 6-7). The Order also expressly warned Jones that
failure to file an amended complaint, captioned “First Amended Complaint,” would result in
dismissal of his action with prejudice (Id.). Despite the Court’s guidance, Jones failed to provide
any additional information of the kind the Court clearly outlined. In fact, Jones’s First Amended
Complaint is a nearly a verbatim recitation of his original complaint—though the Court notes
that he has shuffled the order of the paragraphs such that they appear in a different order than
before (Docs. 1, 5). The Court now dismisses Jones’s action for failure to comply with an order
of this Court, and thus for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. In light of the insufficiency
of Jones’s filings, and his failure to comply with the Court’s order, the Court has rendered the
following decision:
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this action is DISMISSED. Dismissal is with
prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment in favor of the Defendants
and against Plaintiff Jones.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 6, 2016
s/ STACI M. YANDLE
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2