Hawkins v. Phillips ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JACQUES S. HAWKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:23-cv-02008-GCS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) SHOW CAUSE ORDER SISON, Magistrate Judge: On September 18, 2024, the Court set this matter for a telephonic status conference for October 21, 2024. (Doc. 50). On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff failed to appear at the status conference. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to file a response to Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and Failure to Comply with a Court Order. (Doc. 42); (Doc. 49). Plaintiff was warned about the consequences of failing to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 43). Plaintiff was also reminded in the Court’s June 13, 2023 Order that he should report any change of address to the Court within seven days. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff last updated his address with the Court on April 12, 2024. (Doc. 37). However, mail to Plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable to the Court since July 26, 2024. (Doc. 48). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” In dismissing a case for lack of prosecution, the Seventh Circuit has indicated that a district court commits legal error “when it dismisses a suit ‘immediately after the first problem, without exploring other options or saying why they would not be fruitful.’” Sroga v. Huberman, 722 F.3d 980, 982 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 718 F.3d 731, 732-733 (7th Cir. 2013)). The Seventh Circuit has suggested that in addition to warning the plaintiff, the court must consider essential factors such as “the frequency and egregiousness of the plaintiff's failure to comply with other deadlines, the effect of the delay on the court's calendar, and the prejudice resulting to the defendants.” Id. (citing Kruger v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 784, 786-787 (7th Cir. 2000). Because of Plaintiff's failure to appear at the status conference on October 21, 2024, his failure to file an updated change of address with the Court, and his failure to respond to Defendant's two pending motions, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before November 18, 2024, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. Digitally signed by DATED: October 21, 2024. Judge Sison □□ king Cf. AQ Sieal Date: 2024.10.21 13:58:45 -05'00' GILBERT C. SISON United States Magistrate Judge Page 2 of 2