United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ANTHONY T. MOORE, Jr., #446508, Plaintiff,
KEEFE SUPPLY COMPANY, RICHARD WATSON, AUSTIN EVERETT, and ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Anthony Moore, Jr., who is a pretrial detainee at St. Clair
County Jail, filed this action to challenge the cost of items
at the Jail's commissary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a) (“Clayton Act”), 15
U.S.C. § 1 (“Sherman Antitrust Act”), 15
U.S.C. § 15 (“Robinson-Putnam Act”), 18
U.S.C. § 1964 (“RICO”), and Illinois state
law. (Doc. 1, pp. 1, 5). He seeks declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, and injunctive relief. (Doc. 1, p. 12). The
Complaint did not survive screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A and was dismissed without prejudice on May 8, 2018.
(Doc. 7). However, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a
First Amended Complaint on or before June 5, 2018.
Id. He was warned that the action would be dismissed
with prejudice, if he failed to file it by that deadline.
(Doc. 7, p. 9) (citing 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)). Plaintiff was
also warned that he would receive a “strike”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id.
deadline for filing the First Amended Complaint expired more
than two weeks ago. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff did not file a First
Amended Complaint. He also failed to request an extension of
the deadline for doing so.
Court will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. This
action shall be dismissed with prejudice based on
Plaintiff's failure to comply with an Order of this Court
(Doc. 7, p. 9) and failure to prosecute his claims.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The dismissal will count
as one of Plaintiff's three allotted
“strikes” within the meaning of § 1915(g).
IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED with prejudice, based on
Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's Order
to file a First Amended Complaint on or before June 5, 2018.
(Doc. 7, p. 9). 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 counts as one of his three allotted
“strikes” within the meaning of § 1915(g).
because two of Plaintiff's previously-filed
lawsuits have also been dismissed pursuant to
§ 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, the dismissal of this case gives Plaintiff
his third “strike.” Accordingly, if Plaintiff
seeks to file any future civil action while he is a
prisoner, he will no longer be eligible to pay a filing
fee in installments using the in forma pauperis
provisions of § 1915(a) and (b), unless he can establish
that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Plaintiff cannot
make the necessary showing of imminent physical danger, he
shall be required to pre-pay the full filing fee for any
future lawsuit he may file while incarcerated, or face
dismissal of the suit. Because Plaintiff's obligation to
pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time
the action was filed, the filing fee of $350.00 remains due
and payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir.
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. He must list each of
the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal.
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 judgment accordingly.
IS SO ORDERED.
Moore v. Scott, et al., No.
17-cv-1153 (S.D. Ill. dismissed for failure to state a claim
on April 18, 2018); Moore v. Securus Technologies, Inc.,
et al., No. 17-cv-1285 (S.D. Ill. dismissed for ...