Catchings v. USP Marion, No. 3:2014cv00123 - Document 22 (S.D. Ill. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION dismissing this action with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of respondent. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 10/4/2016. (jmt)

Download PDF
Catchings v. USP Marion Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ERNEST CATCHINGS, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN, USP-MARION, Respondent. Civil No. 14-cv-123-CJP 1 MEMORANDUM and ORDER PPROUD, Magistrate Judge: Petitioner Ernest Catchings was an inmate in the BOP at the time he filed his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Respondent recently notified the Court that petitioner was released from BOP custody. See, Doc. 20. Petitioner has not notified the Court of his release from USP-Marion or of his new address. In its order on preliminary review, the Court warned petitioner of the consequences of failure to keep the Court informed of his whereabouts: Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk (and respondent) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the pendency of this action. This notification shall be done in writing and not later than seven (7) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to provide such notice may result in dismissal of this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Doc. 6, p. 6. In addition, a recent Notice of Impending Dismissal, Doc. 21, imparted the 1 This case was assigned to the undersigned for final disposition upon consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). See, Doc. 11. 1 Dockets.Justia.com same warning. The Notice ordered petitioner to notify the Court of his current address by October 3, 2016, or face dismissal of this action. Clearly, petitioner has not kept the Court informed of his whereabouts and has failed to follow the Court’s order. This Court gave petitioner the “warning shot” required by Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 755 (7th Cir. 1993) in Docs. 6 & 21. Petitioner has failed to diligently pursue this case. Pursuant to Johnson v. Chicago Board of Education, 718 F. 3d 731 (7th Cir. 2013), the Court has considered whether a sanction short of dismissal of this case might be fruitful, and finds that it would not. Conclusion This cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of respondent. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: October 4, 2016. s/ Clifford J. Proud CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.