United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
WILLIAM A. MALONE, #B52858, Plaintiff,
WARDEN SHIP, MAJOR MALCOLM, JOHN DOES 1-2, JOHN DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se, Plaintiff William Malone filed a Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this District on October
2, 2017. (Doc. 1). The Complaint was obviously incomplete. It
consisted of pages numbered “9 of, ” “10
of, ” “10 of, ” “1 of 1, ” and
“17 of 17” and made little sense. Id.
The Court entered an Order outlining the deficiencies in the
Complaint on October 13, 2017. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff was
ordered to confirm his intent to pursue this action in
writing no later than November 9, 2017. Id. The
Court also ordered him to submit a First Amended Complaint by
the same deadline, if he wished to proceed with his claims.
Id. Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond by
the deadline would result in dismissal of the action and the
assessment of the full filing fee. Id. (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)). See also Ladien v. Astrachan,
128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga,
34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).
these warnings, Plaintiff missed the deadline for filing the
First Amended Complaint. A week has passed since the deadline
expired. Plaintiff has not requested an extension or filed a
First Amended Complaint. In fact, he has not communicated
with the Court at all since filing his Complaint on October
2, 2017. The Court will not allow this matter to linger
action shall be dismissed with prejudice based on
Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order (Doc. 6)
and for failure to prosecute his claims. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b). The dismissal shall not count as one
of Plaintiff's three allotted “strikes”
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However,
because Plaintiff has “struck out” and failed to
demonstrate that he faces imminent danger of serious physical
injury, his request to proceed in forma pauperis in
this action shall be denied.
HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice,
based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with this
Court's Order (Doc. 6) dated October 13, 2017.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ladien v.
Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v.
Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). The dismissal
does not count as one of his three allotted
“strikes” within the meaning of § 1915(g).
ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiff's obligation to pay the
filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the
action was filed, regardless of subsequent developments in
the case. Because he previously “struck out” and
has not demonstrated that he faces imminent danger of serious
physical injury, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED. Plaintiff
remains obligated to pay the full $400.00 filing fee for this
action, regardless of this dismissal. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464,
467 (7th Cir. 1998).
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's pending Motion for
Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED as MOOT.
Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he may file a notice
of appeal with this Court within thirty days of the entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. 4(A)(4). If Plaintiff does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing
fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See
Fed. R. App. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v.
Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008);
Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir.
1999); Lucien, 133 F.3d at 467. Moreover, if the
appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also
incur another “strike.” A proper and timely
motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of judgment, and this
28-day deadline cannot be extended.
Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter
 Court documents are public records,
and the Court can take judicial notice of them. See
Henson v. CSC Credit Servs.,29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir.
1994). Review of documents filed in the electronic docket of
this Court and on the Public Access to Court Electronic
Records (“PACER”) website
(www.pacer.gov), discloses that Plaintiff has
already had at least ten other cases dismissed as frivolous
or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. See Malone v. Ardis, No. 13-cv-1543 (C.D.
Ill.Dec. 3, 2013); Malone v. City of Peoria, No.
13-cv-1559 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2014); Malone v.
Hill, No. 16-cv-973 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2016);
Malone v. Fritts, No. 16-cv-200 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 7,
2016); Malone v. Unknown Party, No. 16-cv-974 (S.D.
Ill. Nov. 8, 2016); Malone v. Duvall, No. 16-cv-977
(S.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2016); Malone v. IDOC, No.