IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
March 25, 2010
ELZIE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
KIM READER, MARY HALFORD, KAREN PIERCE, JACKIE MILLER, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND WEXFORD MEDICAL INCORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action was dismissed on August 4, 2009, for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the Court (Doc. 19). Judgment was entered the same day (Doc. 20). On January 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and inquired into the status of his case (Doc. 23). His notice of change of address shows that he tried to update his address and inquire into the status of his case in June 2009. But he did so in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He contends that the Clerk of Court in the Northern District should have discovered that Plaintiff's case was pending in this District and should have forwarded the documents to this Court. Remarkably, Plaintiff persists in this contention despite the fact that Plaintiff did not include -- or even know -- his case number when he wrote to the Clerk of Court in the Northern District of Illinois.
On February 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal order and to reinstate his case, again arguing that it was not his fault that his address was not timely updated on this Court's docket. Plaintiff is wrong. He filed the lawsuit in this Court, and having done so, he incurred the obligation to stay involved in the litigation. United State Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson set this case for hearing, issued a video writ for Plaintiff, and coordinated all the details to conduct a hearing via video-conference. After the notice of hearing was returned as undeliverable, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson issued an Order to Show Cause. When that Order was returned as undeliverable, the undersigned district judge dismissed the action. The Court will not now reinstate the action to allow Plaintiff to do what he should have done all along -- stay apprised of the status of his case, which includes giving the Court notice of any change in his whereabouts -- especially since Plaintiff was admonished of his obligation to do so in this Court's September 8, 2008, Order (Doc. 6, p. 7).
For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion to reconsider and reinstate his action (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.