Bentz v. Maue et al

Filing 218

ORDER denying 171 Motion for Sanctions; denying 177 Motion for Sanctions; granting 184 Motion to Amend/Correct. Defendants to file amended exhibits as a supplement by May 8, 2020. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/22/2020. (anp)

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 218 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #2133
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID ROBERT BENTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-854-NJR

NATHAN MAUE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff David Robert Bentz’s Notice and
Motion Under Rule 11 for Sanctions (Docs. 171 and 177). Instead of serving Defendants
his motion as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2), Bentz filed the notice
(Doc. 171) on the docket because he alleges that he is unable to correspond with the
Defendants. Defendants have filed a response (Doc. 183) in opposition to the motion.
Defendants have also filed a motion to amend and/or correct (Doc. 184) to correct some
of the documents due to clerical errors.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) indicates that by “presenting to the court
a pleading, written motion, or other paper…an attorney…certifies that…the claims,
defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous
argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new
law.” One of the purposes of Rule 11 is to prevent baseless filings with the Court. Jimenez
v. Madison Area Technical Coll., 321 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2003). If the Court “determines
that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the [C]ourt may impose an appropriate sanction.” FED.
Page 1 of 4

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 218 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #2134
R. CIV. P. 11(c)(1). “[A] court may impose sanctions on a party for making arguments or
filing claims that are frivolous, legally unreasonable, without factual foundation, or
asserted for an improper purpose.” Fries v. Helsper, 146 F.3d 452, 458 (7th Cir. 1998).
A. Motion to Amend
In response to Bentz’s motion, Defendants have filed a motion to amend and/or
correct (Doc. 184), which seeks to resolve some of the issues Bentz has with the Incident
Reports. Defendants note that the Incident Reports were improperly redacted to include
the signature of the grievance officer. Defendants seek to supplement the record with the
unredacted Incident Reports, which include the proper signatures. Defendants also note
that the Incident Report dated 5/14/2019 was not the finalized version of the report and
they seek leave to submit the finalized, unredacted version. The Court GRANTS the
motion and DIRECTS Defendants to file the unredacted Incident Reports as a
supplement by May 8, 2020.
B. Incident Reports
Defendants have been granted leave to supplement the record with the unredacted
Incident Reports which remedies some of Bentz’s issues. Bentz also argues that he
believes the Incident Reports are falsified because they were not forwarded to Internal
Affairs, failed to include supporting documentation, and alleged that he refused mail
when he states that he never refuses mail. Although it is Bentz’s belief that Incident
Reports should be forwarded to Internal Affairs and include supporting documentation,
he fails to show that such requirements are necessary for a true and accurate Incident
Report. Further, his opinion that the documents are false is not enough; he has not offered
any evidence to support his belief that the Incident Reports are false. Bentz does point to
Page 2 of 4

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 218 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #2135
several envelopes attached to his motion, arguing that the envelopes prove he did not
refuse mail, but there is no indication that these envelopes are the documents referenced
in the Incident Reports. His request for sanctions regarding the Incident Reports is
DENIED.
C. Mail Receipts
Similarly, Bentz fails to offer any evidence to show that the May 13, 2019 and July
11, 2019 mail receipts alleging that he refused to sign for mail are falsified. Bentz offers
only his opinion that the receipts were falsified based on his belief and how he handled
his mail in the past but fails to offer any evidence that the documents are fake. As to the
legal receipt dated July 11, 2019 regarding mail received from Cassidy Schade, Bentz
argues that the stamp would have been cut off making it impossible to return. But
Defendants have submitted a copy of the envelope and return mail, indicating that the
mail was refused by Bentz and demonstrating that the stamp on the envelope was
removed by the prison and returned in a prison envelope (Doc. 183-2). Accordingly,
Bentz’s request for sanctions for the mail receipts is DENIED.
D. Affidavits
Finally, Bentz takes issue with affidavits from Cindy Gimber, Patricia Stewart,
Michele Prange, and Daniel Cushman. He argues that affidavits from Gimber and Prange
are not accompanied by policies, administrative directives, or other documents to prove
their statements. The lack of an attached policy or document does not prove, however,
that the affidavits are false.
As to Patricia Stewart’s affidavit, Bentz argues that her statements prove that the
prison does not follow the Court’s Order 18-0014 regarding Notices of Electronic Filings
Page 3 of 4

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 218 Filed 04/22/20 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #2136
(“N.E.F.’s”). He specifically takes issue with her statement that “N.E.F.’s are placed in the
mailbox for the cell house in which the inmate resides.” (Doc. 177, p. 18). He argues that
the affidavit fails to mention that the N.E.F.’s are sent to the mailroom or institutional
mail as required by the Court’s Order. But Defendants argue that her failure to include
every step in the process does not make the affidavit false. The Court agrees. Stewart
testified as to how she handles the N.E.F.’s when she receives them. The fact that she did
not list all of the steps in the delivery process or did not follow all of the steps of the
Court’s General Order No. 18-0014 does not make her statement false.
Finally, Bentz specifically objects to Daniel Cushman’s affidavit, arguing that
Cushman told him he just signed the affidavit even though it was not accurate. Bentz fails
to offer any proof of this conversation or any other evidence showing that the document
is false.
Accordingly, Bentz’s motions for sanctions (Docs. 171, 177) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 22, 2020
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4