Rector v. Saline County Detention Center

S.D. Illinois

Rector v. Saline County Detention Center

DecidedJune 30, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00394

StatusUnknown

This text of Rector v. Saline County Detention Center (Rector v. Saline County Detention Center) 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

Rector v. Saline County Detention Center, (S.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

RAY AUSTIN LEE RECTOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-00394-JPG ) SALINE COUNTY DETENTION ) CENTER, ) PAULA WILLIAMS, ) DARLA ALLEN, and ) BRAD KARNES, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GILBERT, District Judge: Plaintiff Ray Austin Lee Rector filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for constitutional deprivations stemming from the denial of treatment for a knee injury. (Doc. 1). At the time of filing the Complaint on March 25, 2025, Plaintiff failed to prepay the $405.00 filing fee or file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP motion), and he was given 30 days to do so. (Doc. 3). The Complaint did not survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, so the Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint by April 25, 2025. (Doc 4). He was warned that the action would be dismissed for failure to comply with these Orders. Id. Plaintiff missed the deadlines for filing a First Amended Complaint and either paying the $405.00 filing fee or filing an IFP motion on April 25, 2025, so the Court entered an Order Dismissing Case and Judgment on May 12, 2025. (Docs. 6 and 7). When Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint arrived at the Court for filing the next day (Doc. 9), the Court entered an Order Reopening Case (Doc. 10). However, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee of $405.00 or file a properly completed IFP motion by June 16, 2025, and he was again warned that failure to do so by the deadline would result in dismissal of this action. (Doc. 11). The Court deferred screening of this matter until he complied with this Order. Id. When Plaintiff again missed the deadline to pay the filing fee or seek IFP, the Court entered a Notice of Impending Dismissal (Doc. 12) with a final warning that the case would be closed for noncompliance with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 3, 11, and 12) on June 30, 2025.

The final deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff still has not paid his fee or filed a properly completed IFP motion. The Court has ordered him to do so repeatedly since March 26, 2025, and it will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. This action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 3, 11, and 12) and/or to prosecute his claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Disposition IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 3, 11, 12) to prepay the full $405.00 filing fee or file an IFP motion and for failure to 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). Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action was incurred on the date he filed suit, and he remains obligated to pay this fee. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 30, 2025

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge

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

RAY AUSTIN LEE RECTOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-00394-JPG ) SALINE COUNTY DETENTION ) CENTER, ) PAULA WILLIAMS, ) DARLA ALLEN, and ) BRAD KARNES, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GILBERT, District Judge: Plaintiff Ray Austin Lee Rector filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for constitutional deprivations stemming from the denial of treatment for a knee injury. (Doc. 1). At the time of filing the Complaint on March 25, 2025, Plaintiff failed to prepay the $405.00 filing fee or file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP motion), and he was given 30 days to do so. (Doc. 3). The Complaint did not survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, so the Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint by April 25, 2025. (Doc 4). He was warned that the action would be dismissed for failure to comply with these Orders. Id. Plaintiff missed the deadlines for filing a First Amended Complaint and either paying the $405.00 filing fee or filing an IFP motion on April 25, 2025, so the Court entered an Order Dismissing Case and Judgment on May 12, 2025. (Docs. 6 and 7). When Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint arrived at the Court for filing the next day (Doc. 9), the Court entered an Order Reopening Case (Doc. 10). However, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee of $405.00 or file a properly completed IFP motion by June 16, 2025, and he was again warned that failure to do so by the deadline would result in dismissal of this action. (Doc. 11). The Court deferred screening of this matter until he complied with this Order. Id. When Plaintiff again missed the deadline to pay the filing fee or seek IFP, the Court entered a Notice of Impending Dismissal (Doc. 12) with a final warning that the case would be closed for noncompliance with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 3, 11, and 12) on June 30, 2025.

The final deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff still has not paid his fee or filed a properly completed IFP motion. The Court has ordered him to do so repeatedly since March 26, 2025, and it will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. This action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 3, 11, and 12) and/or to prosecute his claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Disposition IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 3, 11, 12) to prepay the full $405.00 filing fee or file an IFP motion and for failure to 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). Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action was incurred on the date he filed suit, and he remains obligated to pay this fee. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 30, 2025

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rector v. Saline County Detention Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rector-v-saline-county-detention-center-ilsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack