# Bell v. Bridwell

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · July 31, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11112439

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** July 31, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11112439

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11112439. Public record. Not legal advice.