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.

Lois Trask v. Thomas Boyd

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois


February 26, 2013

LOIS TRASK
v.
THOMAS BOYD, ET AL.

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Defendants Donna F. Dickens, Thomas Boyd, A. Sims, M. Ortiz, and Theresa Castro's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution [157] is granted. The instant action is hereby ordered dismissed for want of prosecution. All pending dates and motions, if any, are hereby stricken as moot. Civil case terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

This matter is before the court on Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff Lois Trask (Trask) filed a pro se amended complaint in this action, bringing various incoherent claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various Defendants. This case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. Even though the allegations in the complaint were outlandish, since this case was at the pleadings stage, the court accepted the allegations in the complaint as true and allowed the case to proceed. On April 3, 2012 during a hearing a which Trask was personally present, the court set a status hearing for June 27, 2012, and warned Trask that failure to appear on a court's noticed hearing may result in the dismissal of the action, for want of prosecution, pursuant to Local Rule 41.1. Trask failed to appear for the noticed status hearing and the court dismissed the action for want of prosecution. Even though Trask was not truthful with the court in regard to claiming that she did not receive notice of the June 27, 2012 status hearing, the court reinstated the instant action and set discovery dates in order for the case to proceed on the merits.

Discovery was extended and has closed and Trask has refused to sit for her deposition and has failed to provide Defendants with requested written discovery. Trask has failed to provide any legitimate reason for failing to comply with her discovery obligations. Trask has filed a pro se motion in which she now contends that she fears for her safety and desires that all depositions be conducted at the Dirksen Federal building. Defendants indicate that Trask's deposition was scheduled at the Daley Center, but Trask presents bizarre and fanciful concerns that her safety will be in jeopardy and that she will be unlawfully arrested if she enters the Daley Center. Such claims have no factual basis. This court has given Trask repeated opportunities to prosecute this action and the court has considered lesser sanctions, but it is apparent that Trask has no intention to prosecute this case within established rules and the only appropriate course at this juncture is to dismiss the instant action for want of prosecution. Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss for want of prosecution is granted.

20130226

© 1992-2013 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.