Moore v. City of Alton, Illinois

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: June 17, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00964
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

DEMETRIUS D. MOORE, #14653-025, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:20-cv-00964-SMY ) CITY OF ALTON, ILLINOIS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

YANDLE, District Judge: Plaintiff Demetrius D. Moore, a pretrial detainee in the Randolph County Jail, filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This case was stayed on December 15, 2020 because the claims relate to a state court criminal charge pending in Madison County, Illinois. (Doc. 11). The criminal charge was set for trial on January 4, 2021. (Doc. 10, p. 5). Plaintiff was ordered to notify the Court upon the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and to file status reports, with the first status report due by March 15, 2021. (Doc. 11). He was advised that failure to comply with the Court's Order would result in dismissal of the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to file a status report by the deadline. On March 23, 2021, the Court issued an Order for Plaintiff to show cause on or before April 7, 2021 why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. 13). The Order was returned as undeliverable on April 5, 2021. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address which was received by the Court on April 8, 2021 (Doc. 15), and the Order to Show Cause was mailed to Plaintiff at the new address on April 9, 2021. Because Plaintiff did not receive the Order to Show Cause prior to the deadline, he was ordered to show cause on or before May 13, 2021 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and directed to include a status report regarding the criminal proceedings in Madison County. (Doc. 16). However, the Orders sent to the new address were also returned as undeliverable. (Docs. 17, 18).

Plaintiff was advised that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court informed of any change in his address and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this case. (Docs, 3, 9). However, he has failed to keep the Court advised of his current address. Plaintiff is responsible for maintaining communication with the court concerning his lawsuit and has not done so. See Buchanan v. Weaver, 657 F. App'x 588, 590 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing see Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure comply with a court order and for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. The dismissal does not count as a strike within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, his notice of appeal must be filed with this Court within thirty days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended. If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2021 s/ Staci M. Yandle_____ STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge