Taylor v. Karimi

S.D. Illinois

Taylor v. Karimi

DecidedJanuary 27, 2021

Docket3:19-cv-01305

StatusUnknown

This text of Taylor v. Karimi (Taylor v. Karimi) 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

Taylor v. Karimi, (S.D. Ill. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

KENNADO K. TAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:19-cv-01305-SMY ) DR. FARID KARIMI, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

This matter comes before the Court for case management purposes. 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. (Doc. 12, p. 11). On October 14, 2020, the Court, having been advised that Plaintiff was released from Pontiac Correctional Center, ordered Plaintiff to provide the Clerk of Court his current address within 7 days. (Doc. 95). Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to provide his current address as ordered and mail sent to him has been returned as undeliverable. (Docs. 98, 105, 106, 115). Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute his case – he failed to appear for a telephonic motion hearing on October 14, 2020 (see Doc. 93) and according to a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Cowell, Dammermann, and Nottmeier, he has failed to comply with the Initial Scheduling and Discovery Order (see Doc. 108). Plaintiff is responsible for maintaining communication with the court concerning his suit 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 without prejudice for failure comply with a court order and for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 27, 2021

s/ Staci M. Yandle_____ STACI M. YANDLE 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

KENNADO K. TAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:19-cv-01305-SMY ) DR. FARID KARIMI, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

This matter comes before the Court for case management purposes. 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. (Doc. 12, p. 11). On October 14, 2020, the Court, having been advised that Plaintiff was released from Pontiac Correctional Center, ordered Plaintiff to provide the Clerk of Court his current address within 7 days. (Doc. 95). Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to provide his current address as ordered and mail sent to him has been returned as undeliverable. (Docs. 98, 105, 106, 115). Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute his case – he failed to appear for a telephonic motion hearing on October 14, 2020 (see Doc. 93) and according to a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Cowell, Dammermann, and Nottmeier, he has failed to comply with the Initial Scheduling and Discovery Order (see Doc. 108). Plaintiff is responsible for maintaining communication with the court concerning his suit 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 without prejudice for failure comply with a court order and for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 27, 2021

s/ Staci M. Yandle_____ STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Taylor v. Karimi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-karimi-ilsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack