Coleman et al v. United States Marshal Service et al

Filing 16

IT IS ORDERED that MILLER has until February 15, 2018 to submit: (1) an affirmative statement indicating that he wishes to proceed with this group action and (2) a signed copy of the Complaint. If MILLER fails to respond to this Order, he will be dismissed for want of prosecution and/or failure to comply with a Court Order. To enable MILLER to comply with this Order, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-send a copy of the Complaint to him. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DUNK has until Fe bruary 15, 2018 to submit: (1) an affirmative statement indicating that he wishes to proceed with this group action; (2) an IFP Motion; and (3) a signed copy of the Complaint. If DUNK fails to respond to this Order, he will be dismissed for want of prosecution and/or failure to comply with a Court Order. To enable the DUNK to comply with this Order, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-send a copy of the Complaint to him. (Action due by 2/15/2018) Joseph K. Rander, Quincy O. Edwards and Jamar Jones terminated. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/1/2018. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY COLEMAN, No. 13853-028,
RANDALL A. MILLER,
QUINCY O. EDWARDS,
JOSEPH K. RANDER,
JAMAR JONES, and
ANDREW DUNK,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE, and
RANDY COBB
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-cv-1282-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for case management. Plaintiff Coleman filed the instant
action naming himself and five other individuals as Plaintiffs, all of whom are incarcerated at
White County Jail (“Jail”). However, only Coleman signed the Complaint. Additionally, at the
time of filing, Coleman was the only Plaintiff with an IFP Motion on file. (Doc. 3). The
Complaint alleges Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights by subjecting them to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement and by providing an unhealthy diet.
On December 18, 2017, the Court entered an Order pursuant to Boriboune v. Berge, 391
F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004). (Doc. 5). In the Boriboune Order, the Court designated Plaintiff
Coleman as the “lead plaintiff” in this action. (Doc. 5, p. 3). The Court warned all of the
remaining plaintiffs about the risks, obligations, and costs associated with group litigation. (Doc.
5, pp. 3-4). With the exception of Lead Plaintiff Coleman, each plaintiff was then given an
opportunity to withdraw from the case or sever his claims into individual actions. (Doc. 5, pp. 41

5). The non-lead Plaintiffs were directed to advise the Court in writing on or before January 15,
2018 whether they wished to continue as a Plaintiff in this group action. (Doc. 1, p. 4). The
Court also ordered each non-lead Plaintiff who wanted to continue in this group action to submit
a signed copy of the Complaint on or before the January 15, 2018 deadline. Id.
Any plaintiff who opted to proceed in a separate action was advised that his claims would
be severed into a new case and subject to a filing fee in the new action, instead of the instant
case. Plaintiffs were informed that the only way to avoid the obligation to pay a filing fee for
this action was to request dismissal from this action in writing by the January 15, 2018 deadline.
Plaintiffs were explicitly warned that “[a]ny Plaintiff who simply does not respond to this
Order on or before January 15, 2018, will be obligated to pay the full filing fee and will also
be dismissed from this action for want of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with a
court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Doc. 5, p. 5) (emphasis in
original).
The January 15, 2018 deadline has passed with varying responses from the non-lead
Plaintiffs. The Court addresses the subject responses (or lack thereof) below.
Plaintiff’s Edwards and Rander
Plaintiffs Edwards and Rander did not respond to the Court’s Boriboune Order, did not
submit a signed copy of the Complaint, and did not file IFP Motions or pay the requisite filing
fee. Additionally, documents that were mailed to both of these individuals were returned to the
Court as undeliverable (Docs. 10 and 13). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Edwards and Rander shall be
dismissed from this action based on their failure to timely respond to the Boriboune Order and
for failure to prosecute their claims. The obligation to pay the full filing fee survives their
dismissal from this action.

2

Plaintiff Jones
Plaintiff Jones filed a timely response to the Boriboune Order indicating that he does not
want to proceed with this action. (Doc. 12). Accordingly, Jones shall be dismissed from this
action and shall not be required to remit a filing fee.
Plaintiffs Miller and Dunk
The Boriboune Order specifically required each plaintiff to file a document affirmatively
stating that he wished to proceed in this case no later than January 15, 2018. That is, the Court
needs a written statement from each Plaintiff stating that he wishes to pursue this case jointly
with the other named Plaintiffs. To date, Plaintiffs Miller and Dunk have not made any such
statement.

Further, Plaintiffs Miller and Dunk have not submitted a signed copy of the

Complaint as required by the Boriboune Order. However, Miller has filed an IFP motion and a
trust fund account statement and Dunk has filed two trust fund account statements. (Docs. 11
and 15). Plaintiffs’ filings indicate some willingness to prosecute this case. Accordingly, as to
these two Plaintiffs, the Court will extend the deadline for complying with the Boriboune Order
as set forth in the Disposition below.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that EDWARDS and RANDER are DISMISSED as
plaintiffs in this action based on their failure to timely respond to the Boriboune Order and for
failure to prosecute their claims. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate them as
parties in CM/ECF. EDWARDS and RANDER became obligated to pay the filing fee for this
action at the time they filed it, and the obligation survives their dismissal from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that JONES is dismissed as a Plaintiff in this action
pursuant to his Boriboune Response. (Doc. 12). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to

3

terminate him as a party in CM/ECF. Because JONES filed a timely response indicating that he
does not wish to participate in this action, he will not be charged a filing fee for this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MILLER has until February 15, 2018 to submit:
(1) an affirmative statement indicating that he wishes to proceed with this group action and (2) a
signed copy of the Complaint. If MILLER fails to respond to this Order, he will be dismissed
for want of prosecution and/or failure to comply with a Court Order. To enable the MILLER to
comply with this Order, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-send a copy of the
Complaint to him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DUNK has until February 15, 2018 to submit: (1)
an affirmative statement indicating that he wishes to proceed with this group action; (2) an IFP
Motion; and (3) a signed copy of the Complaint. If DUNK fails to respond to this Order, he will
be dismissed for want of prosecution and/or failure to comply with a Court Order. To enable the
DUNK to comply with this Order, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-send a copy of the
Complaint to him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 1, 2018
s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

4