Allen v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LEON ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
CHAD JENNINGS,
SABRINA BICKERS, and
PHIL MARTIN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:24-CV-2381-MAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is currently before the Court on the motion to dismiss for lack of
prosecution filed by Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and Sabrina Bickers (“the
Wexford Defendants”) (Doc. 65). Plaintiff Leon Allen filed this pro se lawsuit in October
2024 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was receiving constitutionally inadequate
medical care for throat cancer at Robinson Correctional Center (Doc. 1; Doc. 8).
Plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed the complaint in October 2024 (see Doc. 1).
He was repeatedly advised of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court
informed of any change in his address and that his failure to do so may result in dismissal
of his case (Docs. 5, 8). See also SDIL-LR 3.1(b)(2). Plaintiff informed the Court in April
2025 that he had been released from prison (Doc. 46), and he also informed the Court that
same month that he had been picked up on a parole violation and was being held at the
Winnebago County Jail (Doc. 49). Since then, however, Plaintiff has failed to keep the
Case 3:24-cv-02381-MAB Document 68 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
Court apprised of his address (see Doc. 54). The Court determined on August 26, 2025,
that Plaintiff had been returned to IDOC custody and was once again incarcerated at
Robinson Correctional Center (see Doc. 54). Plaintiff did not follow the Court’s Order to
file a formal notice of change of address (see id.). Plaintiff did, however, file motions for
status on October 9, 2025, and November 3, 2025 (Docs. 60, 62; see also Docs. 61, 64). But
Plaintiff has not filed anything more with the Court in the months since.
Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and Sabrina Bickers (“the Wexford
Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution on February 11, 2026 (Doc.
65). In the motion, Defendants indicate that Plaintiff never responded to the written
discovery requests that they served on him some nine and a half months prior (Id.).
Defendants sent a follow-up letter in January 2026 to Plaintiff at both his previous
residential address and at Robinson Correctional Center (Id.). Defendants never received
a response (Id.). Defendants then sent a second follow-up letter in February 2026 to both
addresses; both letters were returned as undeliverable (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has not filed
a response to the motion or made any effort to otherwise communicate with the Court.
The Court believes that Plaintiff has been released from custody again because
when his name and/or inmate number are inputted into the IDOC’s Individuals in
Custody search (available at https://idoc.illinois.gov/offender/inmatesearch.html), the
search result is “Inmate NOT found.” Plaintiff, however, has once again failed to update
his address with the Court. And under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may
dismiss an action with prejudice “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or any court order.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). “The court
Case 3:24-cv-02381-MAB Document 68 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
should exercise this right sparingly” and should dismiss a case “only when there is a clear
record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have
proven unavailing” and an explicit warning has been provided to the plaintiff that
dismissal is imminent. Salata v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 757 F.3d 695, 699 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Webber v. Eye Corp., 721 F.2d 1067, 1069 (7th Cir. 1983)).
In this matter, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the Court is mindful of the
difficulties he faces in doing so. But Plaintiff is nevertheless obligated to comply with
Court orders and deadlines and to communicate with opposing counsel and the Court.
Given Plaintiff’s prolonged lack of substantive action in this case, his failure to comply
with discovery obligations and the scheduling Order, his failure to communicate with
opposing counsel and the Court, and his failure to keep everyone apprised of his location,
Plaintiff has given the Court no other option but to dismiss the case.
Consequently, the Wexford Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution
(Doc. 65) is GRANTED. That renders MOOT the IDOC Defendants’ motion asking the
Court to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to amend the schedule (Doc. 67). This
matter is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a
Court Order and failure to prosecute. The case is CLOSED, and the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 24, 2025
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02381-MAB Document 68 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
NOTICE
Plaintiff is advised that this is a final decision ending his case in this Court. If
Plaintiff wishes to contest this decision, he has two options: he can ask the undersigned
to reconsider the Order or he can appeal to the Seventh Circuit.
If Plaintiff chooses to go straight to the Seventh Circuit, he must file a notice of
appeal in the district court within 30 days from the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P.
4(a)(1)(A). The deadline can be extended for a short time only if Plaintiff files a motion
showing excusable neglect or good cause for missing the deadline and asking for an
extension of time. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5)(A), (C). See also Sherman v. Quinn, 668 F.3d 421,
425 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining the good cause and excusable neglect standards);
Abuelyaman v. Illinois State Univ., 667 F.3d 800, 807 (7th Cir. 2011) (explaining the
excusable neglect standard). The current cost of filing an appeal with the Seventh Circuit
is $505.00. The filing fee is due at the time the notice of appeal is filed. FED. R. APP. P. 3(e).
If Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the entire filing fee up front, he must file a motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP motion”) along with a recent statement for his
prison trust fund account. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C). The IFP motion must set forth
the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C).
On the other hand, if Plaintiff wants to start with the undersigned, he can file a
motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), but
such a motion is not required to preserve his appellate rights. Any Rule 59(e) motion must
be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), and
the deadline cannot be extended. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(2). Any motion must also comply
Case 3:24-cv-02381-MAB Document 68 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
with Rule 7(b)(1) and state with sufficient particularity the reason(s) that the Court should
reconsider the judgment. Talano v. Nw. Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760 (7th
Cir. 2001). See also Elustra v. Mineo, 595 F.3d 699, 707 (7th Cir. 2010) (“This court has held
that otherwise timely skeletal motions that fail to satisfy the requirements of FED. R. CIV.
P. 7(b)(1) do not postpone the 30–day period for filing a notice of appeal . . . .”).
So long as the Rule 59(e) motion is in proper form and filed no later than 28 days
after the judgment is entered, the 30-day clock for filing a notice of appeal will be stopped.
FED. R.APP. P. 4(a)(4). The clock will start anew once the motion is ruled on. FED. R.APP.
P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4), (a)(4)(B)(ii). To be clear, if the Rule 59(e) motion is filed outside the
28-day deadline or “completely devoid of substance,” the motion will not stop the clock
for filing a notice of appeal, and the clock will expire 30 days from the entry of judgment.
Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 826 (7th Cir. 2014); Talano v. Northwestern Medical
Faculty Foundation, Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760–61 (7th Cir. 2001); Martinez v. Trainor, 556 F.2d
818, 819–20 (7th Cir. 1977). Again, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal can be
extended only on a written motion by Plaintiff showing excusable neglect or good cause.
Case 3:24-cv-02381-MAB Document 68 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>