Opinion

Bell v. Bridwell

Court
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 38.5%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DEMETRIUS BELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 24-cv-2587-NJR

SERGEANT BRIDWELL,

JEREMIAH BROWN, and

LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Demetrius Bell, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is currently

incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for violations of his

constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bell initially sent a letter to the United States

District Court for the Central District of Illinois reporting constitutional violations he was

allegedly experiencing on suicide watch at Lawrence. The letter was labeled a Complaint and

transferred to this Court (Docs. 1, 2).

After review of Bell’s filing, the Court found that the letter failed to meet the requirements

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and the letter was relabeled as a motion for preliminary

injunction (Doc. 6, p. 3). Bell was directed to file a formal Complaint (Id.).1 He was warned that

should he fail to file a Complaint within the allotted time, he might face possible dismissal of his

claims (Doc. 6, p. 4). He was later granted three extensions of time to file a formal pleading

1 In light of the seriousness of the allegations, Warden Jeremiah Brown was added to the case to respond

to the motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 6, p. 3). The Court ultimately found that Bell was not entitled

to injunctive relief, in part, because he had failed to file a formal Complaint (Doc. 41, 6).

(Docs. 41, 45, 49). The last extension granted him until July 11, 2025 to file his Complaint (Doc. 49).

He was warned that his failure to file a formal Complaint would result in the dismissal of his

claims (Id.).

The deadline has now passed, and Bell has not filed a formal Complaint or requested

additional time to do so. Accordingly, this entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice for

failure to comply with a Court Order and failure to prosecute his claims.

If Bell wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within

30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If Bell 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. APP. P. 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, and a motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis must set forth the issues he plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C). A

proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the

30-day appeal after the entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2025

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.