Sloat et al v. Stevenson et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Plaintiffs TATE and HODGE are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with multiple court orders and for failure to prosecute their claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Their obligation to pay the filing fee for this action wa s incurred at the time the action was filed, so the filing fee of $400.00 remains due and payable. 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). The pending 8 and 13 Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis are TERMINATED. Because no other plaintiffs remain named herein, the entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice but with no "strike" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/7/2021. (jsy)
Case 3:20-cv-01067-JPG Document 53 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #133
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANDREW S. SLOAT, #20061684,
COREY T. HODGE, #20061636,
GEOFFREY S. LONGDEN, #20061697,
and DENNIS S. TATE, #19060184,
COOK JANE DOE 1,
NURSE JANE DOE 2,
and DR. JOHN DOE,
Case No. 20-cv-01067-JPG
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
GILBERT, District Judge:
On October 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
violations of their constitutional rights at Marion County Law Enforcement Center. (Doc. 1). In
the Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants exposed them to COVID-19 and refused to test
or treat them for it. (Id. at 8-9). Plaintiffs requested money damages, COVID testing, and staff
reprimands. (Id. at 10). The Court entered a Boriboune Order and screened the Complaint without
delay. (Docs. 6 and 7). Four claims survived review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 7).
Plaintiffs have since failed to comply with the court’s orders to update their addresses and
prosecute their claims. The Court repeatedly advised them of their ongoing obligation to notify
the Court of any address changes. Plaintiffs were warned that failure to do so would result in their
dismissal from this action. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs Sloat and Longden after they repeatedly
Case 3:20-cv-01067-JPG Document 53 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #134
failed to update their addresses or respond to the court’s show cause order regarding the same.
(See Docs. 4, 6, 22, and 33).
Plaintiffs Hodge and Tate shall now be dismissed as well. Both were required to notify the
Court of their intention to proceed with this group litigation no later than October 28, 2020, and
they missed the deadline for doing so. (See Doc. 6). On October 30, 2020, the Court granted them
an additional seven (7) days to respond to the Boriboune Order. (Doc. 15). They were “WARNED
that each plaintiff will be dismissed from this action with the imposition of a filing fee, if he fails
to respond by the extended deadline of November 6, 2020.” (Id.). Plaintiffs Hodge and Tate did
On November 18, 2020, the Court entered the following show cause order:
Plaintiffs HODGE and TATE are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before
December 9, 2020, why they should not be dismissed from this action for failure to
notify the Court by October 28, 2020, of their intention to proceed with group
litigation, to dismiss his/their claims, or to sever his/their claims into a separate
case. (See Doc. 6). Plaintiffs HODGE and TATE are WARNED that failure to
respond to this Order by December 9, 2020, shall result in each Plaintiff's dismissal
from this action for noncompliance with the Court's Order and for failure to
prosecute his/their claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Plaintiffs Hodge and Tate missed this deadline as well, and they have not
communicated with the Court since.
In addition, Plaintiff Hodge failed to update his address. His mail has been returned to the
Court undeliverable on numerous occasions. (See Docs. 15, 23, 28, 29, 35-38, and 43). Therefore,
on December 2, 2020, the Court entered the following show cause order:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: All Plaintiffs in this multi-plaintiff action were
advised that they are under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court
informed of any change in their address and that failure to comply could result in
their dismissal from this action for want of prosecution. (See Docs. 4, 5, 6, and 7).
Several documents mailed to Plaintiff Hodge by the Court have been returned as
undeliverable. (See Docs. 15, 23, 28, 29, 35-38, and 43). Plaintiff Hodge is hereby
ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before DECEMBER 16, 2020, why he should
Case 3:20-cv-01067-JPG Document 53 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #135
not be dismissed from this action for failure to comply with the Courts Orders at
Docs. 4-7 and to prosecute his claims. Plaintiff is WARNED that his failure to
respond to this Order will result in his dismissal as a plaintiff in this case pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this Order
to Show Cause to Plaintiff Hodge for a response and to all other parties for
informational purposes only.
(Doc. 44). Plaintiff Hodge did not respond to the show cause order; it was returned undeliverable
along with numerous other documents. (Docs. 30, 32-33, 44-45, and 48-50).
Given these developments, Plaintiffs Tate and Hodge shall now be dismissed from this
action for failure to comply with multiple court orders and for failure to prosecute their claims.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Lucien v. Brewer, 9 F.3d 26, 28 (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.”). The dismissal shall
be with prejudice. Because all other Plaintiffs have already been dismissed, this case shall be
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs DENNIS S. TATE and COREY T. HODGE are
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with multiple court orders (See, e.g., Docs. 47, 15, 33, and 44) and for failure to prosecute their 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).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff TATE’s and HODGE’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 $400.00 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). Their pending Motions for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 8 and 13) are TERMINATED.
Case 3:20-cv-01067-JPG Document 53 Filed 01/07/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #136
Because no other plaintiffs remain named in this action, the entire action is DISMISSED
with prejudice. The dismissal does not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for any
If Plaintiffs wish to appeal this Order, they may file a notice of appeal with this Court
within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. 4(A)(4). If Plaintiffs choose to appeal,
they will each 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, Plaintiffs may incur a “strike.” 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 twentyeight (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.
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
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?