Feldpausch v. Madison Co Jail et al

Filing 54

ORDER. The Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b); see generally James v. McDonalds Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005). The case is CLOSED, and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgement accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 3/5/2025. (orw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RON FELDPAUSCH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VALERIE BASSETT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:22-cv-03086-GCS

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
On October 4, 2024, the undersigned referred this case to the Mandatory
Mediation Program as provided in Section 2.1(A)(2) n.1 of the Court’s Mandatory
Mediation Plan. (Doc. 44); see also Admin. Order No. 301 (Oct. 8, 2021). Court Attorney
and ADR Coordinator Megan Arvola was appointed as Mediator in this matter. (Doc. 44,
p. 1-2). The parties were provided with 14 days from the date of the referral order to file
a “Motion to Opt Out of Mandatory Mediation.” Id. at p. 2. Neither Plaintiff nor
Defendant filed a Motion to Opt out of Mandatory Mediation within the 14-day deadline.
On November 12, 2024, Ms. Arvola filed a Notice of Mediation, stating that a
Mediation Session had been set for January 14, 2025, at 9:30 am in the East St. Louis
Courthouse in Magistrate Judge Beatty’s courtroom. (Doc. 46). She also noted that “a
virtual meeting link will be sent to virtual participants via email.” Id.

Page 1 of 5

On January 14, 2025, Ms. Arvola filed a Report of Mandatory Mediation notifying
the Court that Plaintiff Ron Feldpausch failed to attend the scheduled mediation session.
(Doc. 49, p. 2). Accordingly, Ms. Arvola ended the scheduled mediation session at 9:50
am. Id. On January 16, 2025, the Court issued a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to
explain in writing on or before February 5, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed
for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 50).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to
prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to
dismiss the action or any claim against it.” In dismissing a case for lack of prosecution,
the Seventh Circuit has indicated that a district court commits legal error “when it
dismisses a suit ‘immediately after the first problem, without exploring other options or
saying why they would not be fruitful.’” Sroga v. Huberman, 722 F.3d 980, 982 (7th Cir.
2013) (quoting Johnson v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 718 F.3d 731, 732-733 (7th Cir. 2013)). The
Seventh Circuit has suggested that in addition to warning the plaintiff, the court must
consider essential factors such as “the frequency and egregiousness of the plaintiff’s
failure to comply with other deadlines, the effect of the delay on the court’s calendar, and
the prejudice resulting to the defendants.” Id. (citing Kruger v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 784, 786-787
(7th Cir. 2000)).
Plaintiff failed to participate in the January 14, 2025, mediation conference, (Doc.
49), and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s January 16, 2025, Show Cause Order.
(Doc. 50). The Court has more than 140 cases on its docket, and if the Court permits this
Page 2 of 5

case to drag on further waiting for Plaintiff to respond, it will detrimentally impact the
efficient and timely handling of its other cases. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with
prejudice this action 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 informs
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
Appeals.
If Plaintiff chooses to request this Court to review the 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 must also 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.
Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, 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
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).

Page 3 of 5

So long as the Rule 59(e) motion is in proper form and timely submitted, the 30day clock for filing a notice of appeal will be tolled. 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 toll the time
for filing a notice of appeal; it will expire 30 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 30 days. See
FED. R. APP. PROC. 4(a)(1)(A) (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 University, 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
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
Page 4 of 5

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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by
Judge Sison
Date: 2025.03.05
14:56:53 -06'00'
_____________________________

DATED: March 5, 2025.

GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5