Harris v. Dennison

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: January 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01093
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, #R74862,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 20-CV-01093-SPM

JEFFREY DENNISON, et al.,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

McGLYNN, District Judge:

On September 3, 2024, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(1)(A), Plaintiff had thirty days from the date of service to file a response to the motion. See SDIL-LR 7.1(b)(1)(A). On November 20, 2024, this Court allowed Plaintiff up to and including December 20, 2024, to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 63). As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. The Court also notes that the docket sheet reflects that Plaintiff currently resides at 3645 Orchard Drive, Apt. 11, Hammond, IN 46323. However, the most recent court order sent to his address was returned as undeliverable. (See Doc. 64). The Court, in multiple orders, has advised Plaintiff that if his address changes, he needs to notify the Court in writing within seven days and that the failure to do so could result in his case being dismissed for the failure to do so. (See Doc. 4, 8). The record does not reveal that Plaintiff informed the Court of his change of address. Page 1 of 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” 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)). Because of Plaintiff’s lack of participation in the case, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before February 7, 2025, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff’s last known address, 3645 Orchard Drive, Apt. 11, Hammond, IN 46323.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 17, 2025

s/ Stephen P. McGlynn STEPHEN P. McGLYNN U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2