Williams v. Vienna Correctional Center et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice, without leave to amend, based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's Order (Doc. 5) and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. This dismissal shall not count as one of Plaintiff's three allotted strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/28/2018. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREGORY WILLIAMS, #B52999,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE’S, INC.,
KEVIN HALLORAN,
ALLEN KARRAKER,
JOE EBBITT,
DR. APOSTLE,
DR. J. COE,
PENNY GORGE,
JEANNE CAMPANELLA,
MATTHEW SWALLS,
MR. LUCE,
J. O’NEAL,
DUANE INMAN,
JOHN BALDWIN,
DEBBY KNAUER,
and K. MURPHY,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 18-cv-425-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Gregory Williams filed the instant action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on February 20, 2018. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not sign his Complaint, which is a
requirement for every pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). On February 21,
2018, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to submit a properly completed and signed
complaint within twenty-eight (28) days of the Order, on or before March 21, 2018. (Doc. 5).
Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a signed complaint by the deadline or consistent with the
Court’s Order (Doc. 5) would result in dismissal of the action and striking of the Complaint. Id.

1

(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)).
The deadline for filing the signed complaint has now passed. Plaintiff did not file a
signed complaint. He also did not request an extension of the deadline for doing so. The Court
will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely.
Accordingly, the action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to
amend, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s Order (Doc. 5) and/or for failure
to prosecute his claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir.
1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). This dismissal shall not count as one
of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Representation (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s
Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) will be addressed in a separate
order of the Court. Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the
time the action was filed, regardless of subsequent developments in the case. Accordingly, the
filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable. 1 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 Order, he may file a notice of appeal with this Court
within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. 4(A)(4). 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. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 72526 (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 incur a “strike.” A
proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, effective May 1, 2013, an additional $50.00 administrative fee is also to be assessed
in all civil actions, unless pauper status has been granted.

2

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 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: March 28, 2018
s/ STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

3