Davis v. Chester Mental Health Center et al

Filing 56

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Chester Dietary Staffthe sole remaining defendant is DISMISSED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with orders of the Court (Docs. [ 39] and 53 ) and for failure to prosecute his claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Lucien v. Brewer, 9 F.3d 26, 28-29 (7th Cir. 1993). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 11/6/20. (bps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER DAVIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CHESTER DIETARY STAFF,
Defendant.

Case No. 18 cv–1119 DWD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for case management purposes.

Plaintiff

Christopher Davis, formerly an inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), brought this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for events that allegedly occurred at Chester Mental Health Center
(“Chester”). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 39 and 53)
regarding identification of the unidentified defendant Chester Dietary Staff. As a result,
this Defendant and the case are DISMISSED.
The Court entered a Scheduling and Discovery Order requiring that “[m]otions
for leave to amend the pleadings, including the addition of parties and the identification
of John Doe defendants, shall be filed by December 16, 2019.” (Doc. 39, p. 2). Plaintiff
was warned that failure to follow the Scheduling and Discovery Order may result in
sanctions, including dismissal of the case. (Id., p. 1).
1

Plaintiff failed to identify the unknown party—labeled “Chester Dietary Staff” in
his Complaint— by the deadline, and made no effort to extend the deadline or state what
additional steps were necessary to allow identification. The Court entered an Order to
Show Cause (Doc. 53) requiring Plaintiff to show cause by August 20, 2020, why Chester
Dietary Staff should not be dismissed. The deadline has long passed and Plaintiff has not
responded. Even taking into account the unprecedented pressures on the postal system,
it does not appear that any response is forthcoming.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Chester Dietary Staff—the
sole remaining defendant— is DISMISSED, and this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court and for failure
to prosecute his claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Lucien v. Brewer, 9 F.3d 26, 28-29 (7th Cir.
1993) (stating dismissal is a “feeble sanction” if it is without prejudice; “Rule 41(b) states
the general principle that failure to prosecute a case should be punished by dismissal of
the case with prejudice.”). Plaintiff is ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee
for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed. Therefore, the filing fee of
$350.00 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d
464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 6, 2020

__________________________

David W. Dugan
United States District Judge
2