McCreight v. Watson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KEVIN McCREIGHT #Y44784, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-00151-JPG

)

RICHARD WATSON, )

TRINITY SERVICE GROUP, )

and DAVID MARCOWITZ, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

GILBERT, District Judge:

This case was opened on February 11, 2021, after being severed from an action filed by

Plaintiff Kevin McCreight and a dozen other detainees at St. Clair County Jail (“Jail”). See Brown,

et al. v. Watson, et al., No. 21-cv-00138-JPG (S.D. Ill. filed Feb. 9, 2021) (“original case”). In the

Complaint, Plaintiff McCreight challenged the conditions of his confinement at the Jail (“Jail”).

(Doc. 2, severed case). He requested money damages from the defendants. (Id. at 13).

A Notice and Order was entered when the original case was opened. (Doc. 2, original

case). Among other things, Plaintiff was advised of his obligation to notify the Court of any

address change within seven (7) days of the change. (Id.). He was warned that failure to do so

could result in dismissal of his case. (Id.). The Court reminded Plaintiff of this obligation in the

Order for Service of Process entered in this severed case on April 6, 2021. (Doc. 16, p. 7, severed

case). He was again warned that this action would be dismissed if he failed to provide this

notification. (Id.) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)).

Despite these warnings, Plaintiff’s mail from the Court has repeatedly been returned

“undeliverable” because Plaintiff has been released on parole. (See Docs. 43, 49-51, 53, 55, 58,

61-68). In fact, the Court has received no communication from Plaintiff since he notified the Court

of his address change to Menard Correctional Center on May 10, 2021. (Doc. 25).

Since then, Plaintiff has failed to respond to three pending motions for summary judgment

(Docs. 44, 46, and 52), a motion to compel (Doc. 60), and three orders to show cause why this

severed case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute his claims (Docs. 61, 62, 64). The

final deadline for responding to each of these motions and orders expired at least ten days ago.

The Court has received no communication from Plaintiff regarding any of them.

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

with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders to update his address

(Doc. 2, original case; Doc. 16, severed case), respond to the pending motions (Docs. 44, 46, 52,

and 60), and respond to the orders to show cause (Docs. 61, 62, and 64). See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

This dismissal shall be with prejudice. 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.”).

Disposition

IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with multiple Court’s orders to update his address (Doc. 2, original case; Doc.

16, severed case), respond to the pending motions (Docs. 44, 46, 52, and 60), and respond to the

orders to show cause (Docs. 61, 62, and 64). Plaintiff has abandoned his claim(s). 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 all pending motions (Docs. 44, 46, 52, and 60) are DISMISSED

as MOOT.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that his 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 $350.00 filing fee 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: 11/15/2021 s/J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

United States District Judge