Jacob P. Pitts v. Latoya Hughes, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00028
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

JACOB P. PITTS, ) ) a/k/a Jackie Pitts, )

) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 24-cv-28-RJD

) vs. )

) LATOYA HUGHES, et al., )

) Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DALY, Magistrate Judge:1

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 112) and for case management purposes. Defendants represent that Plaintiff failed to respond to written discovery propounded to him on September 11, 2025. Doc. 112, p. 1. Defendants attempted to resolve this matter without the Court’s intervention twice, by sending correspondence to Plaintiff on October 13, 2025, and October 28, 2025, but Plaintiff again failed to respond. Id. at 1-2. Defendants ask the Court to enter an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ written discovery requests within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Id. at 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B), a party may move to compel an answer or production of documents, and for appropriate sanctions, against a party who has failed to respond to written discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(3)(B). Further, the Court has the “inherent authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” O'Rourke Bros. Inc. v.

1 This matter was assigned to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. Doc. 76. Nesbitt Burns, Inc., 201 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the record shows that Plaintiff has lost interest in this case. Plaintiff has not filed anything in this case or otherwise communicated with the Court since his last change of address on April 8, 2025. Doc. 105. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment despite being granted an extension of time to do so. Doc. 106. Not only did Plaintiff fail

to respond to Defendants’ written discovery and attempts to resolve this matter without the Court’s intervention but has also not filed a response to this pending motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 112) is GRANTED. By December 9, 2025, Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants’ written discovery requests and further explain to the Court in writing why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution. Plaintiff is WARNED that failure to comply with this Order will result in this case being dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: November 25, 2025

s/ Reona J. Daly Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge