Bentz v. Mears ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DAVID ROBERT BENTZ, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 19-cv-00799-NJR ERIN MEARS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge: Pro se Plaintiff David Bentz, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), commenced this case by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 23, 2019. Bentz claims that he has been deprived of his constitutional rights by various staff members at Menard. Although the case has been pending for over a year, it has not yet survived threshold review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Defendants have not been served. After dismissing the Complaint and First Amended Complaint, the Court directed Bentz to file a Second Amended Complaint by May 22, 2020. He did not. Instead, he filed a motion asking for additional time. (Doc. 24). The Court granted the motion, and the Second Amended Complaint was due June 30, 2020. (Doc. 25). Again, he did not file an amended complaint but on June 29, 2020, he filed a motion seeking more time. (Doc. 26). The Court found that Bentz had been given ample time and opportunities to file a complaint that is in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus, denied the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice for failing to comply with an order of the Court. (Doc. 27). After the case was closed, Bentz filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2020. The Court directed him to show cause why the Court should accept the Second Amended Complaint as timely filed and reopen the case. (Doc. 31). Currently before the Court is the Response to the Show Cause Order and supplement filed by Bentz. (Docs. 33, 36). In his response to the show cause order, Bentz cites the mailbox rule and argues that he placed the Second Amended Complaint in the institutional mail at Menard on June 30, 2020. (Doc. 33). After further direction from the Court (Doc. 34), he has provided a copy of the form authorizing payment for the postage used to the send the Second Amended Complaint, which is dated June 30, 2020, by Bentz and received by the mailroom on July 8, 2020. (Doc. 36). Because inmate filings are considered filed upon delivery to prison officials for mailing rather than upon receipt by the Court, and Bentz has provided evidence that he authorized payment for the mailing of his Second Amended Complaint on June 30, 2020, the Court finds that the Show Cause Order is satisfied. See Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 858 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussing the “prison mailbox rule”). The Court VACATES the Dismissal Order (Doc. 27) and Judgment (Doc. 29). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to REOPEN THIS CASE. The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) is deemed timely filed and awaits preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 25, 2020 Tl NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge Page 2 of 2