Hester v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

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

EDISON HESTER, #65294, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-00393-JPG ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE GILBERT, District Judge: On April 20, 2021, this case was opened pursuant to a Memorandum and Severance Order entered in Hester v. Rogers, et al., No. 20-cv-1127-JPG (S.D. Ill.) (original case). This severed case focuses on Plaintiff Edison Hester’s claim (“Count 3,” original case) that he was denied participation in a residential re-entry program at the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois, before his release from federal custody on or around November 7, 2020. (Docs. 1 and 2). On September 13, 2021, the Court screened this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 12). After dividing the claim into two separate counts and renumbering them as Counts 1 and 2, the Court held that neither one survived preliminary review. (Id. at 2-4). Accordingly, Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint on or before October 11, 2021, if he intended to proceed any further with his claims in this case. (Id.). He was warned that failure to do so by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. (Id. at 7) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)). He was also warned that the dismissal would result in the assessment of a “strike.” (Id.) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Plaintiff missed the deadline for filing an Amended Complaint on October 11, 2021. At least a week has passed since the deadline expired, and he has not requested an extension. The Court will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. This action shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 12) to file an Amended Complaint and/or to prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Because the underlying claims and complaint were

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, this dismissal counts as one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Disposition IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 12) to file an Amended Complaint and/or prosecute his claims. See 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 counts as a “strike.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 10/18/2021 s/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge