govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_26-cv-00075-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
CORTEZ BLAKEMORE, 
#18370-041 and #7515412, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
vs. 
 
PULASKI COUNTY JAIL, 
JOHN DOE 1, and 
JOHN DOE 2, 
 
 Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 
 

 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
GILBERT, District Judge: 
Plaintiff, Cortez Blakemore, an inmate in the Pulaski County Detention Center, brings this 
action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for injuries he sustaine d while being transported without a seatbelt 
(Doc. 11). Plaintiff’s original Complaint was di smissed without prejudice for failure to state a 
valid claim, and he was given until March 9, 2026 to file a First Amended Complaint. (Doc 7). 
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on February 25, 2026. (Doc 11). However, on 
April 23, 2026, the First Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state 
a valid claim of relief against a ny named defendant. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff was allowed up to and 
including May 22, 2026 to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id. He was warned that the action 
would be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and/or for want of prosecution if he 
failed to do so. He was also warned that such a dismissal would count as one of his three allotted 
“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. 
Plaintiff missed the deadline for filing the Second Amended Complaint. More than a week 
has passed since this deadline expired, and the Court has received no communication from him in Page ID
#<pageID>
2
this case. The Court will not allow this matter to linger indefinitely. This lawsuit is now dismissed 
because the First Amended Complaint failed to st ate a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and
Plaintiff failed to comply with a Court Order.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice based on 
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief in the First Amended Complaint and for failure to 
comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 12) to file a Second Amended Complaint. See F
ED.R .C IV.
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 this dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915(g).
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he may file a notice of appeal with this Court within 
thirty days of the entry of judgment. F ED.R .A PP. 4(a)(1)(A). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, 
he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See
FED.R .A PP. 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. He must 
list each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal. 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: June 5, 2026
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight