King v. Hill

Opinion

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

MATTHEW ALEXANDER KING, ) #17576-104, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-01719-JPG ) KATHY HILL, ) DAN SPROUL, ) GUY PAGLI, ) MIRANDA FAUST, ) BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE, ) MARY NOLAND, ) AMBER NELSON, ) KATHERINE SIEREVELD, ) TRACY KNUTSON, ) MICHAEL CARVAJAL, ) ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, ) KENNETH HYLE, ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ) and USA, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE GILBERT, District Judge: Plaintiff Matthew Alexander King filed this action in Illinois state court pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), to challenge the screening process used for outgoing mail from the Communications Management Unit at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. (Doc. 1-1). Defendants removed the case to this Court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), and the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s claims did not survive preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and were dismissed on August 12, 2022. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint on or before September 9, 2022, if he intended to proceed with his claims in this case. (Id.). He was warned that failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. (Id.) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)). Plaintiff missed the deadline for filing an Amended Complaint on September 9, 2022. More than a month has passed since this deadline expired, and Plaintiff 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. 8) to file an Amended Complaint and/or to prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). 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. 8) 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). The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/12/2022 s/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge