# Brown v. Riding

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · November 10, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154160

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** November 10, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154160

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154160. Public record. Not legal advice.