UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 6, 2007
MICHAEL DUNHAM, PLAINTIFF,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN BAKER, ET.AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold Baker United States District Judge.
The plaintiff has obviously lost interest in pursuing this litigation. The plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit when he was in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. The plaintiff has repeatedly failed to respond to dispositive motions. The plaintiff has now been released from custody and has failed to inform the court of his current location.
On July 22, 2004, a scheduling order was entered in this case which informed the plaintiff that he must immediately inform the court of any change in his mailing address of telephone number. The plaintiff was also admonished that failure to provide this information could result in the immediate dismissal of his lawsuit. See July 22, 2004 Scheduling Order, p. 3.
On July 13, 2005, the court granted two motions for summary judgment as to Count I of the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff was informed of both motions, but failed to provide a response. The court ordered the plaintiff to inform the court whether he was still interested in pursing this litigation, or his case would be dismissed. See July 13, 2005 Court Order. The plaintiff stated that he did want to continue the lawsuit. [d/e 42, plaintiff's ltr.]
The defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment which was granted in part and denied in part on March 21, 2007. Again the plaintiff was notified of the dispositive motion, but failed to file a response. The court ordered the plaintiff to inform the court whether he wished to pursue the litigation on or before April 5, 2007, or his case would be dismissed. See March 21, 2007 Court Order. The case was set for pretrial conference.
The court was then informed that the plaintiff was no longer in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. The plaintiff has failed to provide the court with his current address or his phone number. The pretrial conference was therefore canceled, and the plaintiff was again admonished that he must provide his most recent address and telephone number to the court on or before April 5, 2007. This notice was returned to the court as undelivered since the Illinois Department of Corrections also has no forwarding address for the plaintiff. This was the first document that has been returned to the clerk of the court.
The deadline has come and gone without any further response from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to abide by several court orders and it is clear he no longer wishes to pursue this litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) The clerk of the court is directed to dismiss this case in its entirety without prejudice for failure to prosecute with due diligence. See Fed. R.Civ. P. 41(b).
2) The plaintiff is still responsible for the payment of the $150 filing fee. Release from incarceration does not relieve the plaintiff of his obligation to pay the filing fee in full.
Enter this 6th day of April, 2007
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.