Wooters v. Jordan et al
ORDER re 39 Order to Show Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 2/16/2021. (mjf)
Case 3:20-cv-00198-GCS Document 44 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #101
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JORDAN JOHNSON, KOLTON
MORRISON, and DYLAN WILLIS,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00198-GCS
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
On September 25, 2020, the Court instructed Plaintiff to pay an initial filing fee of
$2.76 or to demonstrate that he does not have the means to do so by November 24, 2020.
(Doc. 32). Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to pay the initial filing fee on
November 10, 2020; the Court granted that motion on November 12, 2020. (Doc. 33 & 34).
Plaintiff was then required to pay his initial filing fee by December 15, 2020. (Doc. 34).
The record reflects that Plaintiff has changed addresses since this case began. See
(Doc. 33). However, when the clerk of the court sent documents related to the case to
Plaintiff at his new address, the mail was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 35). Plaintiff
has neither paid his initial filing fee nor demonstrated that he does not have the means
to do so. Accordingly, on December 30, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause,
in writing, to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute on or
before January 29, 2021. (Doc. 39). Plaintiff has not yet shown cause, and the time to do
Page 1 of 4
Case 3:20-cv-00198-GCS Document 44 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #102
so has since elapsed.
Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Court may
dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with a court order. See
FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b). A dismissal under this rule is as an adjudication on the merits.
Id. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the Court is mindful of the difficulties he
faces in doing so, Plaintiff is nevertheless required to comply with Court orders,
including the order to pay his initial filing fee. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this
action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b); see generally
James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005). The case is CLOSED, and the
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
In an abundance of caution, and noting Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court advises
Plaintiff as follows. Plaintiff has two means of contesting this order: he may either request
this Court review this order, or he may appeal the order to the Seventh Circuit Court of
If Plaintiff chooses to request this Court to review this order, he should file a
motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Plaintiff must file the motion within twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of judgment; the
deadline cannot be extended. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 59(e); 6(b)(2). The motion also must
comply with Rule 7(b)(1) and state with sufficient particularity the reason(s) that the
Court should reconsider the judgment. See Elustra v. Mineo, 595 F.3d 699, 707 (7th Cir.
2010); Talano v. Nw. Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2001). See also Blue
v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012)(stating that a party must
Page 2 of 4
Case 3:20-cv-00198-GCS Document 44 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #103
establish either manifest error of law or fact, or that newly discovered evidence precluded
entry of judgment in order to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
So long as the Rule 59(e) motion is in proper form and timely submitted, the 60day clock for filing a notice of appeal will be stopped. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 4(a)(4). The
clock will start anew once the undersigned rules on the Rule 59(e) motion. See FED. R.
APP. PROC. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4), (a)(4)(B)(ii). However, if the Rule 59(e) motion is filed outside
the 28-day deadline or “completely devoid of substance,” the motion will not stop the
clock for filing a notice of appeal; it will expire 60 days from the entry of judgment. Carlson
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 826 (7th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Trainor, 556 F.2d 818,
819–820 (7th Cir. 1977). Again, this deadline can be extended only on a written motion by
Plaintiff showing excusable neglect or good cause.
In contrast, if Plaintiff chooses to go straight to the Seventh Circuit, he must file a
notice of appeal from the entry of judgment or order appealed from within 60 days. See
FED. R. APP. PROC. 4(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). The deadline can be extended for a short
time only if Plaintiff files a motion showing excusable neglect or good cause for missing
the deadline and asking for an extension of time. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 4(a)(5)(A), (C).
See also Sherman v. Quinn, 668 F.3d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 2012)(explaining the good cause and
excusable neglect standards); Abuelyaman v. Illinois State Univ., 667 F.3d 800, 807 (7th Cir.
2011)(explaining the excusable neglect standard).
Plaintiff may appeal to the Seventh Circuit by filing a notice of appeal in this Court.
See FED. R. APP. PROC. 3(a). The current cost of filing an appeal with the Seventh Circuit
Page 3 of 4
Case 3:20-cv-00198-GCS Document 44 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #104
is $505.00. The filing fee is due at the time the notice of appeal is filed. See FED. R. APP.
PROC. 3(e). If Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the entire filing fee up front, he must file a
motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP motion”). See FED. R. APP. PROC. 24(a)(1).
The IFP motion must set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See FED. R.
APP. PROC. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff is allowed to proceed IFP on appeal, he will be assessed
an initial partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). He will then be required to make
monthly payments until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2021.
by Judge Sison 2
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 4 of 4
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?