McCaskill v. Reed et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice for failure to comply with an order of this Court. This dismissal shall not count as a strike under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/28/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEPHEN DOUGLAS McCASKILL,
No. K-77293,
Plaintiff,
vs.
W. REED,
OFFICER WILLFORD,
OFFICER GRIFFIN,
LT. JENKINS,
JEFFERY DENNISON,
ALFONSO DAVID,
LORREAL LECRONE,
LORREAL CRANK,
MAJOR FARNER,
C/O GIBBS,
MS. SMOOT,
C/O WIGGS,
ERIC SORENSON,
LOUYD PERKINS,
AUSTIN,
OESTMANN,
and ARMSTRONG,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-cv-748-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for case management and to address a motion filed by
Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action on July 18, 2017, raising claims related to his
prior incarceration at the Shawnee Correctional Center. At the time he filed the case, Plaintiff was no
longer a prisoner. (Doc. 1, pp. 3, 16).
The Clerk promptly advised Plaintiff of the filing fee requirements for a civil rights action
and mailed him a blank form motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 2).
Unfortunately, however, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed

1

IFP within the Court’s 30-day deadline.
On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff was given one more chance to either pay the $400.00 filing
fee in full or to file a motion for leave to proceed IFP. (Doc. 3). He was ordered to take one action or
the other no later than September 22, 2017. The Court warned Plaintiff that if he did not comply with
that order, this action would be dismissed.
Plaintiff did not follow the directions in the Court’s order. Instead of filing a motion for leave
to proceed IFP, which would include information on Plaintiff’s financial resources and allow the
Court to evaluate his ability to pay the filing fee, he submitted a self-styled “Motion for Leave to
Proceed Against the Following Defendants for their Wrong Doings.” (Doc. 4). The motion has a
caption with the names of all Defendants and states: “In my Efforts to Proceed With All Due Respect
Your Honor.” (Doc. 4). The motion contains nothing else. Plaintiff did not submit any financial
information with the motion, and he did not request the Court to waive his obligation to pay the filing
fee. Based on the Court’s clear directions to Plaintiff, and the warning to him of the consequences of
noncompliance with this Court’s order, this action is subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Proceed Against the Following Defendants for Their Wrong
Doings” (Doc. 4) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
comply with an order of this Court. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); see generally James v. McDonald’s Corp.,
417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Lucien v.
Breweur, 9 F.3d 26, 29 (7th Cir. 1993) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is presumptively with
prejudice). This dismissal shall not count as a “strike” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
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 $400.001 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1);

1

Effective May 1, 2013, the filing fee for a civil case was increased to $400.00, by the addition of a $50.00 administrative
fee for filing a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court. See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees - District Court

2

1915(e)(2); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467-68 (7th Cir. 1998) (fee remains due even where
suit is dismissed); Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 1997) (a plaintiff incurs the
obligation to pay the filing fee at the time the action or appeal is commenced).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE THIS CASE and enter judgment accordingly.
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal the dismissal of this case, 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 v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). A proper and timely motion
filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2017
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, 28 U.S.C. § 1914, No. 14. A litigant who is granted IFP status, however, is exempt from
paying the new $50.00 fee and is assessed only $350.00.

3