Reynolds v. Ahmed

Opinion

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

MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS, #10671-023,

Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-00345-SPM

v.

FAISAL VAKIL AHMED, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge: On August 30, 2021, the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Reynolds were denied. (Doc. 100). Reynolds has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and after holding an evidentiary hearing, the Court determined that he did not meet the requirements of the imminent danger exception. Reynolds was ordered to pay the filing fee of $402.00 on or before October 4, 2021, and was warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action. Id. To date, Reynolds has failed to pay the filing fee. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with an Order of this Court.1 See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d

1 Although Reynolds has two interlocutory appeals currently pending regarding the denial of motions for injunctive relief, the Court is not divested of jurisdiction. See Staffa v. Pollard, 597 F. App’x 893, 895 (7th Cir. 2015); Wisc. Mut. Ins Co. v. U.S., 441 F. 3d 502, 504 (7th Cir. 2006); Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Indus. Workers Union, 909 F.2d 248, 250 (7th Cir.1990); Shevlin v. Schewe, 809 F. 2d 447, 450 (7th Cir. 1987). Also see Kusay v. U.S., 62 F. 192, 194 (7 Cir. 1995) (holding that when a “notice of appeal from an interlocutory order is a frivolous effort to block the normal progress of litigation, the district judge may so certify and continue with the case”). 466 (7th Cir. 1994). Any pending motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2021

s/Stephen McGlynn STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN United States District Judge