Marlon H. Van Hook v. Anthony Brown, et al.

S.D. Illinois

Marlon H. Van Hook v. Anthony Brown, et al.

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-02527

StatusUnknown

This text of Marlon H. Van Hook v. Anthony Brown, et al. (Marlon H. Van Hook v. Anthony Brown, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marlon H. Van Hook v. Anthony Brown, et al., (S.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

) MARLON H. VAN HOOK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 24-cv-2527-RJD v. ) ) ANTHONY BROWN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

ORDER DALY, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Defendants violated his civil rights at the St. Clair County Jail. The Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order that gave Plaintiff a deadline of July 7, 2025 to provide Defendants with his Initial Disclosures. Doc. 36. On August 1, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel, explaining to the Court that they had never received Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures. Doc. 37. Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion to Compel. The Court granted the motion on September 2, 2025 and ordered Plaintiff to send his Initial Disclosures to Defendants by September 16, 2025. Doc. 38. On September 17, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions, explaining that they had not received the disclosures. Doc. 39. On September 24, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, giving Plaintiff a deadline of October 24, 2025 to file a pleading that explains why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Doc. 40. Plaintiff was warned that this case would be dismissed with prejudice if he did not comply with the Order to Show Cause. Doc. 40. Page 1 of 2 Plaintiff never responded to the Order to Show Cause, nor did he file a Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. It appears that Plaintiff has lost interest in this case. This Court has the “inherent authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” O’Rourke Bros. Inc. v. Nesbitt Burns, Inc., 201 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2000). Dismissal is appropriate here because Plaintiff

failed to comply with the Court’s three previous Orders. Docs. 36, 38, 40. Consequently, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED AS MOOT and all pending deadlines are VACATED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 28, 2025

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

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

) MARLON H. VAN HOOK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 24-cv-2527-RJD v. ) ) ANTHONY BROWN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

ORDER DALY, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Defendants violated his civil rights at the St. Clair County Jail. The Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order that gave Plaintiff a deadline of July 7, 2025 to provide Defendants with his Initial Disclosures. Doc. 36. On August 1, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel, explaining to the Court that they had never received Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures. Doc. 37. Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion to Compel. The Court granted the motion on September 2, 2025 and ordered Plaintiff to send his Initial Disclosures to Defendants by September 16, 2025. Doc. 38. On September 17, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions, explaining that they had not received the disclosures. Doc. 39. On September 24, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, giving Plaintiff a deadline of October 24, 2025 to file a pleading that explains why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Doc. 40. Plaintiff was warned that this case would be dismissed with prejudice if he did not comply with the Order to Show Cause. Doc. 40. Page 1 of 2 Plaintiff never responded to the Order to Show Cause, nor did he file a Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. It appears that Plaintiff has lost interest in this case. This Court has the “inherent authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” O’Rourke Bros. Inc. v. Nesbitt Burns, Inc., 201 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2000). Dismissal is appropriate here because Plaintiff

failed to comply with the Court’s three previous Orders. Docs. 36, 38, 40. Consequently, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED AS MOOT and all pending deadlines are VACATED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 28, 2025

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

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Marlon H. Van Hook v. Anthony Brown, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlon-h-van-hook-v-anthony-brown-et-al-ilsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack