Grissom

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BART M. GRISSOM, #310364, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-01952-JPG

)

RICHARD WATSON, )

DOCTOR GREEN, )

C/O WILLIAMS, )

SGT. BROWN, )

and C/O LADANTE, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Bart Grissom filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP motion) (Doc. 2) on October 23, 2025. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims

against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights at

St. Clair County Jail. (Doc. 1, pp. 13). He seeks money damages. Id.

At the time of case opening, the Court entered a Notice instructing Plaintiff to sign and

return a Consent/Non-Consent to Proceed Before A Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form no later

than November 13, 2025. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff did not return the signed form or request an extension

of time to do so.

Also at the time of case opening, the Court separately entered a Notice and Order advising

Plaintiff of his ongoing obligation to notify the Court of any address changes that occur: “[Y]ou

are advised that if your address changes, you must notify the Court within seven days of the change

by filing a Notice of Change of Address.” (Doc. 4). Plaintiff was warned that “[f]ailure to do so

could result in the dismissal of [the] case.” Id.

Beginning on November 4, 2025, Plaintiff’s mail was returned to the Court undelivered

with a note on each envelope indicating that he is no longer in custody at St. Clair Count Jail. See

Docs. 3-5, 8-10, and 12. The Court entered the following Order on November 4, 2025:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: At the time this case was opened, Plaintiff was advised of

his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court informed of any change in his address

and that failure to timely update his address could result in dismissal of this action for want

of prosecution. (See Doc. 4). One or more documents mailed to Plaintiff by the Court has

been returned undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer housed at his original address on

file with the Court, i.e., St. Clair County Jail. (See Docs. 3, 4, 8). Plaintiff is hereby

ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before DECEMBER 4, 2025, why this action should

not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the Court's Orders at Doc. 4 to update

his address and for failure to prosecute his claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff is

WARNED that failure to respond to this Order by the deadline will result in dismissal of

the action without prejudice after the deadline expires. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit

a copy of this Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff at the address he most recently provided to

the Court.

(Doc. 9). Plaintiff’s response was due December 4, 2025, and the Court received no response from

him. Plaintiff also made no request for an extension of time to respond.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for noncompliance with the Court’s Orders

at Docs. 3, 4, and 9 and for want of prosecution. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128

F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). This dismissal

shall NOT count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action

was filed, so the fee of $350.00 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: December 18, 2025

s/ J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

United States District Judge