Phillips v. St Clair County Sheriff Department

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PETER PHILLIPS, #455668,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY SHERIFF’s
DEPARTMENT and
ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-cv-01967-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Peter Phillips filed a Complaint against St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department and
St. Clair County Jail pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 27, 2025. (Doc 1). The Complaint
was screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
(Doc. 5). 	The Court explained that neither defendant was considered a “person” subject to suit
under § 1983, and even if Plaintiff intended to name the county as a defendant, the allegations
articulated no Monell-type claim against it. Id. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended
Complaint on or before November 26, 2025. (Doc. 5). He was warned that failure to do so would
result in dismissal of the action for noncompliance with the Court’s Order (Doc. 5) and for want
of prosecution. Id. (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41). He was also warned that the dismissal would count
as a “strike” because his underlying Complaint failed to state a claim for relief. 	Id. (citing
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
Plaintiff missed the initial deadline for filing a First Amended Complaint. However, his
mail was erroneously returned undelivered from St. Clair County Jail based on his transfer when
he was still housed there. (Docs. 10-13). On December 3, 2025, the Court sua sponte extended
Case 3:25-cv-01967-JPG Document 22 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
the deadline for filing a First Amended Complaint to December 26, 2025. (Doc. 13). The Court
again warned Plaintiff that the action would be dismissed, if he missed the extended deadline. Id.
Plaintiff then missed the extended deadline for filing a First Amended Complaint. 	On
January 12, 2026, the Court entered the following Notice of Impending Dismissal:
NOTICE OF IMPENDING DISMISSAL: The Court cannot move forward with this matter
because there is no operative complaint on file. The original Complaint was dismissed.
(Docs. 1, 5). Plaintiff was ordered to file a First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 5, 13). He has
not complied with the Court’s Orders to do so by the original deadline of November 26,
2025 (Doc. 5) or the extended deadline of December 26, 2025 (Doc. 13). He is WARNED
that this action will be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders, if he does
not file a First Amended Complaint in compliance with those Orders by JANUARY 30,
2026. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint
form, along with a courtesy copy of the docket sheet and Docs. 1, 5, and 13.
(Doc. 17).
Plaintiff also failed to file a First Amended Complaint by the second extended deadline of
January 30, 2026. After the deadline expired, the Court received Plaintiff’s self-styled “Motion
for Monetary Relief” on February 3, 2026. (Doc. 20). In it, he requested $10 million against the
defendants in this case and Case No. 25-cv-01968-JPG. 	Id. 	The Court denied this motion on
February 4, 2026, and gave Plaintiff one final extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint,
i.e., no later than February 13, 2026. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff missed this final deadline as well.
More than a week has passed since Plaintiff’s final deadline expired, and the Court has
received no communication from him in this case. The Court will not allow this matter to linger
any longer. Plaintiff’s case shall be dismissed.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim in his original Complaint (Doc 1) and his failure to comply with
the Court’s Orders (Docs. 5, 13, 17, and 21) to file a First Amended Complaint and/or prosecute
Case 3:25-cv-01967-JPG Document 22 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
his claim(s). 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). This dismissal counts as a “strike” within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 25, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01967-JPG Document 22 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>