The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TERESA MAYE BUSH, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-000541-GCS
)
RA’SHAWN WALKER, )
)
Respondent, )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
On August 11, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss petition as moot or in
the alternative Respondent’s response to the petition. (Doc. 20). As of result of Petitioner’s
failure to respond to the motion to dismiss, the Court, on September 17, 2025, directed
Petitioner to respond to the motion to dismiss on or before October 14, 2025, and warned
Petitioner that the failure to respond may result in the Court dismissing the petition for
failure to prosecute. (Doc. 22). As of October 16, 2025, Petitioner did not file a response.
Because of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, the Court, issued a Show Cause Order
directing Petitioner to respond in writing, on or before November 6, 2025, why her
petition should not be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 23). As of this date, Plaintiff has
neither responded to the motion to dismiss nor to the Show Cause Order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to
Page 1 of 3
prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to
dismiss the action or any claim against it.” “The court may ‘infer a lack of intent to
prosecute a case from a pattern of failure to meet court-imposed deadlines.’” Pouliot v.
Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, No. 21-2735, 2025 WL 1275774, at *2 (7th Cir. May
2, 2025) (quoting Dickerson v. Board of Education of Ford Heights, Illinois, 32 F.3d 1114, 1117
(7th Cir. 1994)). In dismissing a case for lack of prosecution, the Seventh Circuit has
indicated that a district court commits legal error “when it dismisses a suit ‘immediately
after the first problem, without exploring other options or saying why they would not be
fruitful.’” Sroga v. Huberman, 722 F.3d 980, 982 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Chicago
Bd. of Educ., 718 F.3d 731, 732-733 (7th Cir. 2013)). The Seventh Circuit has suggested that
in addition to warning the plaintiff, the court must consider essential factors such as “the
frequency and egregiousness of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with other deadlines, the
effect of the delay on the court’s calendar, and the prejudice resulting to the defendants.”
Id. (citing Kruger v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 784, 786-787 (7th Cir. 2000)).
Here, Petitioner failed to follow Court Orders by not responding to the motion to
dismiss and by not responding to the Show Cause Order. The Court has 139 cases on its
docket, and if the Court permits this case to drag on further waiting for Petitioner to
respond, it will detrimentally impact the efficient and timely handling of its other cases.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice this action pursuant to Rule 41(b).
See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b); see generally James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th
Page 2 of 3
Cir. 2005). The case is CLOSED, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by
DATED: November 12, 2025. De 2 . Judge Sison
(Sllet ©. Ose tate: 2025.11.12
12:44:56 -06'00'
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3