Hester v. Rogers

Opinion

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

EDISON HESTER, #36962-044, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-01127-JPG ) C/O ROGERS, ) C/O WEDTKA, ) and MARCIE NAGLE, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE GILBERT, District Judge: On October 26, 2020, Edison Hester filed this action to address miscellaneous claims arising from his incarceration at the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680. (Doc. 1). In a Memorandum and Severance Order dated April 19, 2021, the Court severed unrelated claims into separate actions. (Doc. 9). The Court then screened his five remaining claims in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 10). The claims did not survive preliminary review and were dismissed. (Id.). Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint on or before October 11, 2021, if he intended to proceed any further with his claims in this case. He was warned that failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice and the assessment of a “strike.” (Id. at 7) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); 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. In fact, the Court has heard nothing from him since January 26, 2021. (Doc. 7). 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. 10) 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. 10) 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