discussing the “prison mailbox rule”
How later courts described this case
- discussing the “prison mailbox rule”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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