IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
October 19, 2009
SHERMAN GIBSON, PLAINTIFF,
DONALD D. GAETZ, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 21, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that he had accumulated three or more strikes and was not under imminent danger of serious physical injury (Doc. 5). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court directed Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee of $350 within 15 days, and no payment has been received. Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion for continuance and for change of venue (Doc. 6). He presents no explanation of why he needs a continuance to respond to the Court's order, and in fact, the instant motion is essentially a response attempting to challenge the finding that he is not under imminent danger of serious physical harm.
The assertions supporting his contention of imminent danger are that in June 2009, unspecified staff members at Menard "try to ill an inmate." He also alleges that his attempts to file a grievance have been thwarted. Neither of these assertions support a finding that Plaintiff was in imminent danger when he filed this action in May 2009. Accordingly, the instant motion is DENIED.
Because Plaintiff has failed to pay the $350 filing fee within the allotted time as directed, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with an order of this Court. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); see generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.