Frye v. Barwick et al

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SHAWN FRYE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BARWICK, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-01134-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss for want of prosecution filed by
Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 49). For the following
reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff initiated this case on May 29, 2025, alleging constitutional violations that occurred
while he was housed at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. (Doc. 1). On May 21, 2026, Defendants
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Doc.
43). Twice, Plaintiff requested additional time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
and both requests were granted. (Doc. 45, 46, 47, 48). Plaintiff, however, has still failed to respond.
On August 27, 2026, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss that is currently before the
Court. (Doc. 49). Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under
Rule 41(b), as Plaintiff has not only failed to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, but
also, he has not updated his address with the Court. (Id.). Defendants state that according to the
public website for the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), Plaintiff is no longer in IDOC
custody.
After the Motion to Dismiss was filed, the Court entered a Show Cause Order warning
Case 3:25-cv-01134-SPM Document 51 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
Plaintiff that he had until September 28, 2026, to explain to the Court why this case should not be
dismissed for failure to comply with court orders to file a notice of any change in address and for
want of prosecution. (Doc. 50). Plaintiff was advised that in lieu of responding to the Show Cause
Order he could simply file responses to the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file a response to the Show Cause Order or the
Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Summary Judgment would result in dismissal of this case.
At this time, Plaintiff has not updated his address, responded to the Show Cause Order or
the pending motions, or expressed any intention to continue pursuing his claims. Therefore, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with its orders (Doc. 5, 8, 50) and to prosecute this
matter. Consequently, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. 49). This matter is
DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005). The Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED as moot. (Doc. 43).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 13, 2026
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01134-SPM Document 51 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>