Opinion

Brown v. Riding

Court
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Filed
Nov 10, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 21.2%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

TATHONY BROWN, #98928, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-00564-JPG

)

STEPHEN B. RIDING )

LT. FOSTER, )

SGT. RICHERT, )

DEPUTY HARING, )

SGT. SARHAGE, )

and SGT. MIKE, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Tathony Brown brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to address

violations of his constitutional rights at Madison County Jail. (Doc. 1). The Court screened the

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on October 4, 2021. (Doc. 9). However, it did not

survive review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Id.). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Complaint

without prejudice. (Id.).

Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint no later than

November 2, 2021. (Doc. 9). He was warned that the action would be dismissed with prejudice,

if he failed to do so by the deadline. (Id.). He was also warned that the dismissal would count as

one of his three allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Id.).

Plaintiff missed the deadline for filing the First Amended Complaint. More than a week

has passed since the deadline expired. He has not requested an extension.

The Court will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. This action shall be dismissed

with prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 9) to file a First Amended

Complaint and/or to prosecute his claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The dismissal shall count as

one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” within the meaning of Section 1915(g).

Disposition

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice based on

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order to file a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9)

and prosecute his 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). This dismissal counts as a “strike”

within the meaning of Section 1915(g).

If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he may file a notice of appeal with this Court within

thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. 4(a)(1)(A). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal,

he will 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, 725-26 (7th Cir.

2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien, 133 F.3d at 467. He must

list each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal. Moreover, if the appeal is found

to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another “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 twenty-eight (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.

DATED: 11/10/2021 s/J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.