Chairs v. Wexford Healthcare Inc

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

AMOS CHAIRS, A-90420,

Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-00244-SPM

v.

DR. JOHN TROST, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge: This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss for failure to comply an order of the Court filed by Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 67). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. At the time of commencing this lawsuit, Plaintiff Amos Chairs was an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections. He brought his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for constitutionally inadequate medical care. (Doc. 38).1 On June 5, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to initiating this action, as is required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997e. (Doc. 64). Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to the motion, and on July 10, 2023, Defendants filed the motion to dismiss that is currently before the Court. (Doc. 67). In the motion, Defendants state that on June 23, 2023, the motion for summary judgment,

1 After filing the Complaint pro se, the Court recruited counsel to represent Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Counsel filed the Amended Complaint, and then after a motion to dismiss was filed by Defendants, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a motion to withdraw. The motion to withdraw was granted, and Plaintiff is representing himself in this matter. (Doc. 49). the supporting memorandum, and the Rule 56(a) Notice, which had been mailed to Plaintiff, were returned to them marked “RTS-Paroled.” They note that the Illinois Department of Corrections website records Plaintiff as having been paroled. Defendants argue that early on in this case Plaintiff was instructed to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change

in his address. (See Doc. 4). Plaintiff was warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action. Because Plaintiff has failed to update his address, Defendant asks the Court to dismiss this case for failure to comply with a Court order. After the motion was filed, the Court entered an order informing Plaintiff that he had until July 26, 2023, to update his address and indicate his intentions to pursue his claims, or his case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 68). A few days later, the Court received from the Northern District of Illinois a notice of change of address that was mistakenly filed in that court by Plaintiff. (Doc. 69). The Court sent to Plaintiff at his new address a copy of the docket sheet, the motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support, the Rule 56 Notice, the motion to dismiss, and the notice of impending dismissal. (Doc. 70). Plaintiff was informed that he had until

August 10, 2023, to respond to the motion to dismiss and inform the Court of whether he wished to continue prosecuting his claims. He was again warned that failure to respond to the Court’s order would result in dismissal of his claims. At this time, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order, the motion to dismiss, the motion for summary judgment, or expressed any intentions to continue pursuing this case. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with its orders and to prosecute this matter. Consequently, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. 67). This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005). The motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. (Doc. 64). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 17, 2023

s/Stephen P. McGlynn STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN United States District Judge