Jordan v. Lloyd et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMIR JORDAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MS. LLOYD et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:23-cv-2327-DWD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court to address Plaintiff’s lack of participation in this
case. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery requests, two Court orders
(Docs. 49 and 52), and to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 53).
Defendants served Plaintiff with two sets of interrogatories and one set of requests
to produce on August 5, 2025. Plaintiff’s responses were due by September 5, 2025. On
September 11, 2025, after not having received any responses, Defendants sent Plaintiff a
letter in a good faith effort to obtain them without court action. Following Plaintiff’s
failure to respond, Defendants filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 48).
The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the motion by October 17, 2025. (Doc.
49). The Court advised Plaintiff that a party who fails to participate in the discovery
Case 3:23-cv-02327-DWD Document 54 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
process or comply with court orders may have his case dismissed for lack of prosecution
and/or as a sanction. (Doc. 49).
Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order or provide interrogatory answers.
(Doc. 52). Accordingly, on October 27, 2025, the Court granted the motion to compel.
(Doc. 52). The Court directed the Clerk to send Plaintiff additional copies of the
outstanding discovery requests and ordered Plaintiff to provide complete responses.
(Doc. 52). Plaintiff was, once again, warned that failure to participate in discovery or
comply with the Court’s orders may result in sanctions, including dismissal of his case.
(Doc. 52).
On December 9, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions indicating that
Plaintiff 	still 	had 	not 	responded 	to 	discovery 	or 	otherwise 	communicated 	with
Defendants. (Doc. 53). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion for sanctions or
otherwise communicated with the Court.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with its orders, failed to
participate in the discovery process, and failed to prosecute this matter. Consequently,
the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 53) is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b), 37(d), and 41(b). See
generally James v. McDonald's Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005). The Court DIRECTS
Case 3:23-cv-02327-DWD Document 54 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
the Clerk to close the case and to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 12, 2026
s/David W. Dugan
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-02327-DWD Document 54 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>