The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RYAN RATLIFF,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 24-cv-1957-NJR
JOHN DOE #8, JOHN DOE #9, JOHN
DOE #10, and WARDEN JEREMIAH
BROWN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Ryan Ratliff, who at the time he filed his Complaint was an inmate of the
Illinois Department of Corrections (he has since been released), brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After a review of
Ratliff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Ratliff was allowed to proceed on a
single count for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights against three unknown
correctional officers (“John Does”) who failed to fix a water leak in his cell (Doc. 13, pp. 2-
3). Warden Jeremiah Brown was added to the case, in his official capacity only, to respond
to discovery aimed at identifying the unknown officers (Id. at p. 3).
After Warden Brown was served and entered his appearance, the Court entered a
scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery aimed at identifying the John Doe
defendants (Doc. 17). Ratliff was given a deadline of February 7, 2025, to file a Notice
with the Court with any information he had which would help identify the John Doe
Defendants, including physical descriptions, shift times, ranks, and other identifying
information (Id. at pp. 1-2). Warden Brown then had until February 25, 2025, to file a
Notice with the identities of the unknown officers or, if Brown was unable to identify
them, documents and information that would assist in identifying the officers (Id. at p. 2).
Ratliff also was given a deadline to file a motion to substitute specific defendants for the
John Does on or before March 11, 2025 (Id.).
On January 21, 2025, Ratliff filed his Notice but failed to provide any identifying
information to aid Warden Brown in identifying the unknown officers (Doc. 18). Instead,
he asked for the production of numerous documents, most of which were related to the
merits of his claims (Id.). On February 25, 2025, Warden Brown filed his Response
indicating that he was unable to provide identifications for any of the officers due to
Ratliff’s failure to provide identifying information (Doc. 23). The deadline for Ratliff to
file a motion to substitute passed with no response from Ratliff. On April 7, 2025, the
Court again Ordered Ratliff to provide identifying information for the unknown officers
(Doc. 24). His request for documents related to the merits of his claims was denied. Ratliff
was warned that his failure to respond to the scheduling order for a second time would
result in the dismissal of his claims for failure to prosecute. The deadline for filing the
Notice with the Court was April 28, 2025.
As of this date, Ratliff has failed to file a Notice with identifying information for
the John Does, nor has he responded to the Court’s Order in any other fashion.
The Court will not allow this matter to linger. Ratliff has failed to comply with the
Court’s Orders, despite warnings that his failure to respond would result in the dismissal
of his claims. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute
his claims. See FED.R.CIv.P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051, 1057 (7th Cir. 1997);
Sroga v. Huberman, 722 F.3d 980, 982 (7th Cir. 2013). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
enter judgment and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 10, 2025 7
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge