Lewis v. Chester Mental Health Center et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice, and shall count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/7/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LABARIAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff,
vs.
CHESTER MENTAL HEALTH CTR.,
JONIE FISHER, and DOCTOR CASEY,

Defendants.

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

CIVIL NO. 16-cv-00813-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This action came before the Court on Lewis’s Complaint on July 18, 2016 (Doc. 1) via a
transfer from the Central District of Illinois (See dkt. entry July 18, 2016). At the time of filing,
Lewis did not pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On
July 19, 2016, this Court sent Lewis a letter requesting payment of the filing fee or completion of
an attached IFP application (Doc. 3). The Order advised Lewis that failure to pay the fee or file
the application could result in the dismissal of the case with associated penalties after 30 days.
The 30 day period from July 19, 2016, has passed without any response from Lewis.
Accordingly, the Court now dismisses Lewis’s action for failure to comply with an order of this
Court.
Moreover, even if the Court were to extend the time to pay the fee, a cursory review of
the Complaint does not reveal any properly stated claims. The Complaint does not contain
factual allegations specific to the named defendants and thus fails to put the Defendants on
notice of any facts giving rise to a claim against them. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
Page 1 of 2

U.S. 544, 555 (1955) (stating that bare labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of
elements is insufficient to state a claim); Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2003)
(a “short and plain” statement of the claim suffices under FED. R. CIV. P. 8 if it notifies the
defendant of the principal events upon which the claims are based); Brokaw v. Mercer County,
235 F.3d 1000, 1024 (7th Cir. 2000) (“notice pleading requires the plaintiff to allege just enough
to put the defendant on notice of facts providing a right to recovery”).
In light of the insufficiency of Lewis’s Complaint and his failure to comply with the
Court’s order in the time allotted, the Court has rendered the following decision:
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this action is DISMISSED. Dismissal is without
prejudice, and shall count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Paul v.
Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that a “dismissal is a dismissal, and
provided that it is on one of the grounds specified in § 1915(g) it counts as a strike, . . . , whether
or not it’s with prejudice.”). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment in favor of
the Defendants and against Plaintiff Lewis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 7, 2016
s/ STACI M. YANDLE
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2