Grimsley v. Wexford Health Source et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 10/11/2019. (ksp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AARON D. GRIMSLEY, #S09620, Plaintiff, vs. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE, SHAW, LORIE CUNNINGHAM, STOVER, and LYNN PITTMAN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 19-cv-00534-NJR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge: This matter is before the Court for case management. Plaintiff Aaron D. Grimsley filed this action for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Complaint did not survive screening because Grimsley failed to state a claim for relief, and on August 29, 2019, the Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 10). Grimsley was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint on or before October 3, 2019. (Doc. 10, p. 6). Grimsley was warned that if he failed to submit a First Amended Complaint, this case would be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.). The deadline to file a First Amended Complaint has passed. Grimsley has not filed a First Amended Complaint, nor has he requested an extension. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for Grimsley’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order to file a First Amended Complaint and to prosecute his claim. 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); Lucien v. Breweur, 9 F.3d 26, 29 (7th Cir. 1993) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is presumptively with prejudice). Further, because the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, this dismissal shall count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Grimsley is ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus 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). If Grimsley wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal 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 must set forth the issues Grimsley plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Grimsley chooses 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, 133 F.3d at 467. Moreover, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Grimsley may incur a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2019 s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel______ NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?