Opinion

Brown

Court
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Filed
Oct 28, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 36.0%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

)

MARLON H. VAN HOOK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 24-cv-2527-RJD

v. )

)

ANTHONY BROWN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

ORDER

DALY, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Defendants

violated his civil rights at the St. Clair County Jail. The Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order

that gave Plaintiff a deadline of July 7, 2025 to provide Defendants with his Initial Disclosures.

Doc. 36. On August 1, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel, explaining to the Court that

they had never received Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures. Doc. 37. Plaintiff did not respond to the

Motion to Compel. The Court granted the motion on September 2, 2025 and ordered Plaintiff to

send his Initial Disclosures to Defendants by September 16, 2025. Doc. 38. On September 17,

2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions, explaining that they had not received the

disclosures. Doc. 39. On September 24, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, giving

Plaintiff a deadline of October 24, 2025 to file a pleading that explains why this case should not

be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Doc. 40. Plaintiff was warned that this case

would be dismissed with prejudice if he did not comply with the Order to Show Cause. Doc. 40.

Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff never responded to the Order to Show Cause, nor did he file a Response to Defendants’

Motion for Sanctions.

It appears that Plaintiff has lost interest in this case. This Court has the “inherent authority

to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” O’Rourke Bros. Inc. v. Nesbitt

Burns, Inc., 201 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2000). Dismissal is appropriate here because Plaintiff

failed to comply with the Court’s three previous Orders. Docs. 36, 38, 40. Consequently, this

case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED AS

MOOT and all pending deadlines are VACATED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 28, 2025

s/ Reona J. Daly

Hon. Reona J. Daly

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2

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.