United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 113),
which recommends that these consolidated cases be dismissed
as malicious in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and
that Plaintiff Andrew Lamon's in forma pauperis
status be revoked.
Andrew Lamon ("Lamon"), an inmate in the Illinois
Department of Corrections, filed these pro se
lawsuits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Big Muddy River Correctional Center. On March 23, 2015 and
October 16, 2015, District Judge J. Phil Gilbert consolidated
all three cases together, finding that they involved common
issues of law and fact because all cases contain the same
allegations based upon the same timeframe against various
defendants (Docs. 41 and 67).
February 29, 2016, Lamon moved for Rule 11 sanctions against
defense counsel Assistant Attorney General Matthew Tamul
based on alleged misrepresentations included in Defendant
Mark Lahr's Answer to the Complaint (Doc. 82). On April
1, 2016, Defendants responded to the Motion for Sanctions,
arguing that the motion lacked any legal basis and the Answer
reflected a mere disagreement regarding the facts of the case
(Doc. 91). On April 6, 2016, Lamon filed a Motion to Present
Authority in which he reasserted his Rule 11 arguments (Doc.
93). In that motion, he disparaged the Court and defense
counsel with various inappropriate and derogatory remarks
response, on June 10, 2016, Magistrate Judge Philip M.
Frazier ordered Lamon to show cause as to why his IFP status
should not be revoked as a result of filing the Motion to
Present Authority with the apparent purpose of harassing the
Court and defense counsel (Doc. 107). Lamon failed to respond
to Magistrate Judge Frazier's Show Cause
September 19, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions
pursuant to Rule 11(b), requesting that the Court revoke
Lamon's IFP status and order him to pay the full filing
fee before allowing him to proceed in this case as a sanction
for filing the Motion to Present Authority (Doc. 112). Lamon
failed to respond to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions.
October 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Daly issued the Report and
Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 113),
recommending that Lamon's IFP status be revoked. She
further recommended dismissal of the case as malicious
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Objections to the
Report and Recommendation were due on or before October 24,
2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); SDIL-LR73.1(b). Lamon did not file an objection.
timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a
de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); SDIL-LR
73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824
F.Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. 111. 1993); see also Govas v.
Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where
neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not conduct
a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Instead, the
Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734,
739 (7th Cir. 1999). A judge may then "accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C.
undersigned has reviewed Magistrate Judge Daly's Report
and Recommendation for clear error. Following this review,
the undersigned agrees with Magistrate Judge Daly that
revocation of Lamon's IFP status and dismissal is
warranted, but the undersigned will dismiss these cases based
on its inherent power to dismiss when a litigant has
"willfully abused the judicial process." See
Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Systems, Inc., 579 F.3d
787, 793 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Though 'particularly
severe, ' the sanction of dismissal is within the
court's discretion"); see also Chambers v.
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (courts have the
inherent power to impose respect and decorum, and "to
fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the
light of the deliberate and harassing nature of Lamon's
filing in connection with his failure to comply with
Magistrate Judge Frazier's order to show cause and
respond to the present motion, and grounded on the
Court's inherent authority to impose sanctions based on
abuse of the judicial process, the Court finds revocation of
his IFP status and dismissal of his case to be appropriate.
See Jimenez v. Madison Area Technical College, 321
F.3d 652, 657 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding that the district
court's decision to dismiss a case as a sanction for
abusive conduct was "within the bounds of the trial
court's sound discretion").
the Court ADOPTS in part Magistrate Judge Daly's Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 113) and GRANTS Defendants'
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 112). Lamon's IFP status is
REVOKED, and he is ORDERED to pay $949.19,  the remaining
balance of his filing fee for all three cases. These
consolidated cases are DISMISSED with prejudice. Judgment
will be entered accordingly.