# Brown

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · October 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11180201

## Case

- **Full name:** Marlon H. Van Hook v. Anthony Brown, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** October 28, 2025
- **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/11180201

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11180201. Public record. Not legal advice.