Pembleton v. Watson et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for failure to prosecute and DISMISSING as MOOT #3 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Tyron Pembleton. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/17/2021. (jsy)

Case 3:21-cv-01213-JPG Document 14 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #75

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TYRON PEMBLETON, #463076,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD WATSON,
LIEUTENANT GRIMES,
OFFICER NICHOLS,
SGT. MESSEY,
OFFICER FUTRELL,
SGT. NICHOLS,
OFFICER THORPE,
OFFICER IVEY,
CAPT. COLLINS,
SGT. MOORE,
MS. MARY,
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES,
GRANT MENGUS,
OFFICER BRAN,
SECURUS PHONE COMPANY,
ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL,
TRINITY COMMISSARY,
MEDICAL SERVICES,
SGT. BOONYAK, and
OFFICER GERMAINE,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 21-cv-01213-JPG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is now before the Court for case management. Plaintiff Tyron Pembleton filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 4, 2021. (Doc. 1). He complains of
constitutional deprivations at St. Clair County Jail. (Id.). On the date this case was opened, the
Court entered a Notice and Order advising Pembleton of his ongoing obligation to notify the Court

1

Case 3:21-cv-01213-JPG Document 14 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #76

and parties of any address change within seven (7) days of a relocation. (See Doc. 5). He was
explicitly warned that the case would be dismissed for failure to do so. (Id.).
Pembleton’s mail has since been returned to the Court undelivered because the “inmate [is]
no longer in jail custody.” (See Docs. 5-6, 8, 10-13). On October 28, 2021, the Court entered the
following order:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff was advised of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court informed of any change in his address and that failure to timely update his address could
result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. (See Doc. 5). One or more documents
mailed to Plaintiff by the Court has been returned undeliverable. (See Docs. 5, 6, 10). Plaintiff is
hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before NOVEMBER 11, 2021, why this action should
not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the Court's Order at Doc. 5 to update his
address and for failure to prosecute his claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff is WARNED that
failure to respond to this Order will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff at the address he
most recently provided to the Court. The Court will not screen the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
1915A until Plaintiff complies with this Order. Show Cause Response due by 11/11/2021.

(see Doc. 11) (emphasis added). Pembleton faced dismissal of this action, if he failed to respond
to the show cause order on or before November 11, 2021. Preliminary review of this matter was
deferred until he complied with the order.
Pembleton did not respond by November 11, 2021. The Court has instead received
Pembleton’s copy of the Notice and Order (Doc. 5) and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 11) back from
his last known address at the Jail—returned undelivered because he is no longer in custody. (See
Docs. 10 and 13). Pembleton has not notified the Court of any address changes since filing this
action. In fact, the Court has heard nothing from him since October 4, 2021.
The Court will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. This action shall be dismissed
without prejudice based on Pembleton’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders to update his
address (Docs. 5 and 11), his failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 11), and his
failure to prosecute his claim in this case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Lucien v. Brewer, 9 F.3d 26,
28 (7th Cir. 1993).
2

Case 3:21-cv-01213-JPG Document 14 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #77

Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice, based on
Pembleton’s failure to comply with multiple Court orders (Docs. 5 and 11) and his failure to
prosecute his claim(s) herein. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The dismissal of this action does not
count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS ORDERED that the pending Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3) is
DISMISSED as MOOT.
IT IS ORDERED that Pembleton’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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 11/17/2021

s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge

3