Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Levy v. Gates

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


August 2, 2010

ENRICO LEVY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN GATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for purposes of docket control. On June 14, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and found that, even though Plaintiff had accrued "3 strikes" prior to commencing this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury (see Doc. 6). Nevertheless, in reviewing Plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court found that the complaint failed to state a claim because it failed to identify which defendants had allegedly denied Plaintiff medical care (see Doc. 7). Therefore, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days to specifically identify the defendants who allegedly denied him medical treatment. The Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint within the time specified, this action would be dismissed. More than 30 days have passed, and the Court has not received Plaintiff's amended complaint.

Furthermore, the Court's docket indicates that mail sent from the Court to Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable (see Doc. 8). In this particular case, it appears that the Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) was returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff had been released from confinement. There is no indication, however, that the Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint (Doc. 7)was returned as undeliverable. The Court notes that Plaintiff was under an obligation to notify the Court of any change in his address within 7 days. SDIL-LR 3.1(b). Plaintiff has failed to fulfill his obligation to keep this Court informed of his current mailing address.

For these reasons, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 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

20100802

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.