Pitts v. Hughes et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JACOB P. PITTS,
a/k/a Jackie Pitts,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LATOYA HUGHES, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 24-cv-28-RJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
DALY, Magistrate Judge:1
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 112) and for
case management purposes. Defendants represent that Plaintiff failed to respond to written
discovery propounded to him on September 11, 2025. Doc. 112, p. 1. Defendants attempted to
resolve this matter without the Court’s intervention twice, by sending correspondence to Plaintiff
on October 13, 2025, and October 28, 2025, but Plaintiff again failed to respond. Id. at 1-2.
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ written
discovery requests within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37 and grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Id. at 3
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B), a party may move to compel an answer
or production of documents, and for appropriate sanctions, against a party who has failed to
respond to written discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(3)(B). Further, the Court has the “inherent
authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” O'Rourke Bros. Inc. v.
1 This matter was assigned to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial and final entry
of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. Doc. 76.
Case 3:24-cv-00028-RJD Document 113 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
Nesbitt Burns, Inc., 201 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2000).
Here, the record shows that Plaintiff has lost interest in this case. Plaintiff has not filed
anything in this case or otherwise communicated with the Court since his last change of address
on April 8, 2025. Doc. 105. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment despite being granted an extension of time to do so. Doc. 106. Not only did Plaintiff fail
to respond to Defendants’ written discovery and attempts to resolve this matter without the Court’s
intervention but has also not filed a response to this pending motion.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 112) is GRANTED. By December 9,
2025, Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants’ written discovery requests and further explain to the
Court in writing why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution.
Plaintiff is WARNED that failure to comply with this Order will result in this case being dismissed
with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 25, 2025
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00028-RJD Document 113 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>