Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Cross v. McLaurin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 7, 2017




         This matter is before the Court for case management and for identification of the plaintiffs who will proceed with group litigation in this case. On July 5, 2017, five inmates at St. Clair County Jail (“Jail”) filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this District. (Doc. 1). They challenged various conditions of their confinement at the Jail. The Complaint was signed by all five plaintiffs, including Cedric Cross, Larry Williams, Daniel Pippins, Courtney McNeal, and Christopher Furr. (Doc.1, p. 6).

         On July 25, 2017, this Court entered an Order pursuant to Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004). (Doc. 7). In the Boriboune Order, the Court designated Plaintiff Pippins as the “lead plaintiff” in this action. Id.[1] The Court also dismissed Plaintiff Furr from the case, in accord with his Motion to Withdraw from the case. Id.

         The Court warned all of the remaining plaintiffs about the risks, obligations, and costs associated with group litigation. Id. With the exception of Lead Plaintiff Pippins, each plaintiff was then given an opportunity to withdraw from the case or sever his claims into individual actions. Id. Any plaintiff who opted to proceed in a separate action was advised that his claims would be severed into a new case and subject to a filing fee in the new action, instead of the instant case. Id. The deadline for responding to the Boriboune Order was August 24, 2017. Id. Plaintiffs were informed that the only way to avoid the obligation to pay a filing fee for this action was to request dismissal from this action in writing by the deadline. Id. Plaintiffs were explicitly warned that “[a]ny Plaintiff who simply does not respond to this Order on or before August 24, 2017, will be obligated to pay the full filing fee and will also be dismissed from this action for want of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Doc. 7, p. 7) (emphasis in original).

         On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff Cross filed an IFP Motion. (Doc. 11). The IFP Motion did not mention the Court's Boriboune Order in any way. Plaintiff Cross has not otherwise responded to the Boribourne Order by confirming his desire to proceed with group litigation or to proceed in a separate action. Plaintiffs McNeal and Williams also failed to respond to the Court's Boribourne Order.


         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action shall proceed only as to Lead Plaintiff DANIEL PIPPINS.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs CEDRIC CROSS, LARRY WILLIAMS, and COURTNEY MCNEAL are DISMISSED as plaintiffs in this action based on their failure to timely respond to the Boriboune Order and for failure to prosecute their claims.

         IT IS ALSO ORDERED that with the exception of Plaintiff Furr (who was previously dismissed from this action and relieved of his obligation to pay the filling fee) all Plaintiffs became obligated to pay the filing fee for this action at the time they filed it, and the obligation survives their dismissal from this action. Plaintiffs Pippins, Mcneal, and Williams filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 3, 5, and 11), which shall be addressed in separate court orders.

         The Clerk is DIRECTED to modify the case caption as follows: DANIEL PIPPINS, Plaintiff v. PHILIP MCLAURIN, ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL, ST CLAIR COUNTY MEDICAL STAFF, MARY ROBINSON-DAVIE, ARAMARK, Defendants.

         This case is still subject to preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. No service shall be ordered in the present case until the § 1915A review is completed.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Pippins is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” in this case on or before [December 6, 2017], in order to focus this case on claims that pertain only to him. Should Plaintiff fail to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time, this action may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order or for failure to prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).

         Should Plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint, it is strongly recommended that he use the forms designed for use in this District for such actions. He should be careful to label the pleading, “First Amended Complaint, ” and he must list this case number (Case No. 17-00699-JPG) on the first page. To enable Plaintiff to comply with this Order, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff Pippins a blank civil rights complaint form.

         In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must, at a minimum, describe the actions taken by each defendant that resulted in the deprivation of his federal constitutional rights. He should attempt to include the facts of his case in chronological order, inserting each defendant's name where necessary to identify the actors. Plaintiff should refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits or including any other unrelated claims in his amended complaint. Claims against different groups of defendants that are found to be ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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