IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JAMES STROUSE, #15976-078, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-00694-JPG ) USA, ) WILLIAM BARR, ) WARDEN – FCI GREENVILLE, ) and JOHN DOES 1-200, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge: On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 1). In his Motion, Plaintiff complained that he was denied access to his legal paperwork and the electronic law library at USP-Marion and FCI-Greenville and consequently unable to file briefs in three pending actions. (Id.). He requested a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order: (1) declaring that he has been denied access to the electronic law library; and (2) prohibiting retaliation against him for filing this motion. (Id. at 5). Due to the urgent nature of the request, the case was opened and screened without a Complaint, Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP motion”), or filing fee. On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff’s Motion was dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 4). The Court ordered Plaintiff to take certain action if he wished to proceed with his claims. On or before August 14, 2020, he was ordered to file a Complaint. He was also ordered to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or file a properly completed IFP motion. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal of this case and imposition of a $400.00 filing fee for the action. (Id.) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)). On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Emergency Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 5). Because the Court already dismissed the original Motion (Doc. 1), the Court entered an Order finding the Motion to Dismiss moot. (Doc. 6). However, the Court also stated that “it

appears that Plaintiff simply seeks to voluntarily dismiss this case because his issues have been resolved. If so, Plaintiff should file a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Case, so that the case can be dismissed without prejudice.” (Id.). Plaintiff was required to respond to the Court’s Orders (Docs. 4 and 6) by August 14, 2020. He failed to do so. At least a week has passed since this deadline expired. Plaintiff has not filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Case, Complaint, IFP motion, or filing fee. The Court will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. This action is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with an Order of this Court and for want of prosecution. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan,

(7th Cir. 1997); Johnson

v. Kamminga,

(7th Cir. 1994). This dismissal shall NOT count as a “strike” under

(g). Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed, so the fee of $400.00 remains due and payable. See

(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch,

(7th Cir. 1998). If 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);

(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger,

(7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza,

(7th Cir. 1999); Lucien,

. 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 the judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.

The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 28, 2020 s/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT U.S. District Judge