Van Hook v. Nurse Jean - Dismissed Without Prejudice, $350 Fee Due

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 8, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Marlon H Van Hook v. Nurse Jean, et al.

District Court, S.D. Illinois

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:25-cv-00519

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MARLON H VAN HOOK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-cv-00519-SPM

NURSE JEAN, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Marlon Van Hook filed this civil action for violations of his constitutional rights
that occurred at St. Clair County Jail on April 7, 2025. (Doc. 1). Upon initiating this case, Plaintiff
was advised that if his address changed, he was to notify the Court within fourteen days of the
change by filing a Notice of Change of Address. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was warned that failure to do
so could result in the dismissal of this case. On October 27, 2025, the Court received three
documents previously sent to Plaintiff marked as undeliverable, including the Merit Review Order.
(Doc. 21). According to the Federal Bureau of Prison (BOP) website, Plaintiff is no longer in BOP
custody as of October 14, 2025. On November 20, 2025, the Court entered a Notice of Impending
Dismissal, advising Plaintiff that failure to provide his current address by December 18, 2025,
would result in dismissal of this case. (Doc. 28). The Notice was also returned as undeliverable.
(Doc. 33).
Over five months have passed since Plaintiff’s release, he has not filed anything with the
Court regarding his new address, and the Court has no way to contact him. The Court will not
allow this matter to linger indefinitely or investigate Plaintiff’s whereabouts. Accordingly, this
action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order to provide
notice of any address change and for failure to prosecute his claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b);
Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir.
1994).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred

at the time the action was filed. Therefore, the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this order, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within
thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If he does choose to appeal, he
will be liable for the appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See FED. R. APP.
P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan
v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien, 133 F.3d at 467. Plaintiff must list each of
the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal and his motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C). A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule

59(e) motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of judgment, and
this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 8, 2026

s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge