UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
October 27, 2011
PERCY BONNER, SR., PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL RANDLE, ET.AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James E. Shadid United States District Judge
E-FILED Thursday, 27 October, 2011 01:13:10 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This cause is before the court for case management. The pro se Plaintiff filed his lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming that his constitutional rights were violated at Pontiac Correctional Center when three correctional officials violated his First Amendment rights. See November 15, 2010 Merit Review Order.
On March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a notice with the court stating that he would be released from custody soon and providing the court with his new address in Chicago, Illinois. [d/e 23] This is the last contact the Plaintiff had with the court.
On August 29, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for sanctions. [d/e 24] The Defendants say they scheduled a deposition of the Plaintiff on August 24, 2011 and provided the Plaintiff with timely notice that the deposition would be held at the Attorney General's Office in Springfield, Illinois. The Defendants say the Plaintiff failed to appear for the deposition, and failed to notify the Defendants that he was unable to attend. The Defendants asked the court to order the Plaintiff to pay the court reporter's fees. In addition, the Defendants asked the court to bar the Plaintiff from testifying concerning the issues in his complaint since he refused to let them depose him.
When the Plaintiff did not file a response, the court ordered the Plaintiff to file a response explaining why he did not appear for his deposition. September 22, 2011. The Plaintiff was informed that he must provide his response on or before October 7, 2011. The court admonished the Plaintiff that if he did not meet this deadline, "the court will assume the Plaintiff has lost interest in pursuing this litigation and his case could be dismissed." September 22, 2011 Text Order.
The Plaintiff has failed to file a response. In addition, none of the court's mailings to the Plaintiff have been returned, so it appears the Plaintiff has received notification of all motions and deadlines. While dismissal of a lawsuit is a severe sanction, the Plaintiff has refused to participate any further with this litigation and has had no contact with the court in eight months. Therefore, the court will dismiss this lawsuit and will not order any further sanctions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The Defendants motion for sanctions is denied. [d/e 24] The Plaintiff's case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice for failure to prosecute with due diligence and failure to follow a court order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
2) Release from incarceration does not relieve the Plaintiff of his obligation to pay the $350 filing fee in full.
James E. Shadid
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.