Allen v. Engelage et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODERICK T. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENGELAGE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 15-cv-00175-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a motion seeking to modify the filing
restriction and two motions seeking to withdraw the motion to modify the filing restriction. (Doc.
30, 31, 32).
On August 18, 2015, the Court entered sanctions against Plaintiff Allen for continuously
filing lawsuits without the payment of the required fees. (Doc. 15). Allen was restricted from filing
any new civil actions in this District until his outstanding filing fees of $6,625.00 were paid in full.
(Id. at 5) (citing Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (1995); Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d
429, 437 (7th Cir. 1997)). The filing restriction did not extend to a notice of appeal filed in this
case, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or any pleadings filed as a defendant in another criminal
or civil case. (Id.). Further, it was not perpetual. Allen was informed that he “may seek
modification or rescission of this Order, by filing a motion in this Court no earlier than two years
from the date of entry of this Order, assuming that he fails to pay the balance of his filing fees
within that two years.” (Id.) (emphasis in original).
Since Allen was sanctioned, he has sought modification or rescission of the filing
Case 3:15-cv-00175-SPM Document 33 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
restriction twice and both times his motions have been denied by the Court. (Doc. 20, 21, 22, 23).
On October 28, 2021, in denying Allen’s second motion for rescission or modification, the Court
ruled that the filing restriction remained in effect and extended the restriction until Allen had paid
his outstanding filing fees of $8,835.00. (Doc. 23, p. 4). The Clerk of Court was directed to
continue returning any documents submitted by Allen unfiled. (Id.). Allen was advised that he
could seek modification or recission of the filing restriction no earlier than two years from the date
of the Order, if he failed to pay the balance of his filing fees within those two years. (Id.).
Allen now asks the Court to modify the filing restriction so that he may file a new
complaint. (Doc. 30). He states that he has waited two years as directed by the Court and that the
Court has been collecting monthly payments from his account to pay his filing fees. Allen asserts
that he would pay the full filing fee, if the filing restriction is lifted and he is allowed to file his
new case. (Id.).
After filing the motion to modify the filing restriction, Allen filed two subsequent motions
asking to withdraw the original motion and for the Court to “extend the deadline to begin
proceedings and file the complaint.” (Doc. 31, 32). He states more time is needed to conduct legal
work, and he is not physically or mentally prepared to proceed with a new case due to health issues.
(Doc. 32, p. 1). Allen also informs the Court that he lacks the necessary funds to pay the full filing
fee and will be in a better place to litigate his new claims after his release. (Id. at p. 1, 5).
The motions seeking to withdraw the motion to modify the filing restriction are
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Doc. 31, 32). The motion to modify the filing
restriction is DEEMED withdrawn. (Doc. 30). Allen’s request for the Court to “extend the
deadline to begin proceedings” is DENIED. (Doc. 31, 32). There are currently no deadlines in this
case. Allen was advised that he may seek modification or recission of the filing restriction no
earlier than two years from the date of October 28, 2021. (Doc. 23). There is not a deadline,
Case 3:15-cv-00175-SPM Document 33 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
however, for him to file such motion. To the extent Allen seeks extension of the statute of
limitations for any potential claim or claims, such request is also DENIED. The statute of
limitations is an affirmative defense raised by the opposing party, and the Court has no authority
to extend the statute of limitations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	December 9, 2025
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:15-cv-00175-SPM Document 33 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>