Bentz et al v. Godinez et al

Filing 85

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs CHRIS ALEXANDER, TERRENCE MILLER, EDDIE BROTHERS, BRANDON HARRIS, EDDIE HILL, KWAYURA JACKSON, ADALBERTO ANAYA, PEDRO TERRAZAS, TONY WALSH, and ANTHONY WIGGINS are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice for f ailing to return a signed complaint and/or notifying this Court of their desire to be dismissed from this action per this Court's Order dated April 12, 2017 (Doc. 29). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following plaintiffs shall advise the Court in writing on or before (June 21, 2017) whether their signature on the Filing (Doc. 25) that Plaintiff Bentz seeks to be construed as the complaint in this action is their own, and, if so, whether they were aware that they were signing a pleading for this lawsuit when they signed it, and whether they reviewed the document prior to signing it: JOHN REED, MARCUS BARRY, KEITH NELSON, MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH, JESSE PEREZ, DANIEL DIAZ, TUAN FIELDS, ROBERT HUNT, TERRY MORGAN, CEVIN STANFORD, BRETT SHARP, JA MES BARNWELL, JEFFREY BLANEY, and ANTELETO JONES. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal from this action for failure to comply with an order of the court and/or failure to prosecute. To enable these plaintiffs to determine wh ether they indeed signed and reviewed the Filing, the CLERK is DIRECTED to send each of the above plaintiffs the first page of allegations in the Filing (Doc. 25, p. 4) and the signature page of the Filing (Doc. 25, p. 51).See attached order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 5/24/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID ROBERT BENTZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SALVADOR GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-315-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for case management. Plaintiff Bentz has informed the
Court that he intended the Motion to Certify Class (Class Certification Allegations) (Doc. 25)
(“Filing”) to be filed as a complaint pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. 3) dated March 30, 2017
rather than as a motion. (Doc. 71). Prior to reclassifying the Filing (Doc. 25) as a complaint,
however, the Court seeks confirmation that it complies with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Two separate plaintiffs whose signatures appear to be on the Filing (Doc. 25), Plaintiff
Hunt and Plaintiff Blaney, have filed responses to this Court's Order (Doc. 3) that indicate they
have not signed and/or seen any complaint in this action, much less the one they appear to have
signed. See (Doc. 48); (Doc. 65). If someone else signed the Filing on their behalf, the
document runs afoul of Rule 11 as to them because each pro se plaintiff must sign documents for
himself. See Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 831 (7th Cir. 1986). If the signatures
indeed belong to these plaintiffs, but they were not aware of the contents of the document they
were signing, the Filing still violates Rule 11 because a signature by a party certifies to the Court
"that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
1

reasonable under the circumstances," among other things, "the claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument" and "the factual
contentions have evidentiary support[.]" FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b). The plaintiffs would not have
been able to provide such a certification without being aware of the contents of the document.
In order for this Court to determine whether Plaintiff Hunt and Plaintiff Blaney, as well
as the other plaintiffs who have not submitted a signed complaint on their own behalf, actually
signed the Filing (Doc. 25) that Plaintiff Bentz seeks to be construed as the complaint in this
action, this Court ORDERS the following plaintiffs to notify the Court in writing whether their
signature on the Filing is their own, and, if so, whether they were aware that they were signing a
pleading for this lawsuit when they signed the Filing and whether they reviewed the Filing prior
to signing it: John Reed, Marcus Barry, Keith Nelson, Muhammad Abdullah, Jesse Perez,
Daniel Diaz, Tuan Fields, Robert Hunt, Terry Morgan, Cevin Stanford, Brett Sharp, James
Barnwell, Jeffrey Blaney, and Anteleto Jones.
Order Responses
The following plaintiffs have failed to file a signed complaint pursuant to this Court’s
Orders dated March 30, 2017 (Doc. 3) and April 12, 2017 (Doc. 29): Chris Alexander,
Terrence Miller, Eddie Brothers, Brandon Harris, Eddie Hill, Kwayura Jackson,
Adalberto Anaya, Pedro Terrazas, Tony Walsh, and Anthony Wiggins. The deadline for
returning a signed complaint was April 27, 2017. (Doc. 3); (Doc. 29, p. 10). This date has long
passed. The Court warned the plaintiffs on multiple occasions that failure to file a signed
complaint would result in dismissal of the action as to them. Id. These plaintiffs will therefore
be dismissed with prejudice from this action without the assessment of a filing fee and without
the assessment of a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

2

This Court received several written responses to its Order dated April 12, 2017 (Doc. 29)
from plaintiffs seeking to remove themselves from this action without the assessment of a filing
fee. Each of those plaintiffs either did not file a signed complaint and are being dismissed, per
their request, without the assessment of a filing fee, or appear to have signed the Filing (Doc. 25)
that Plaintiff Bentz seeks to be construed as the complaint in this action. The Court seeks
resolution of the Rule 11 issues surrounding the Filing prior to dismissing the plaintiffs who
appear to have signed it who are now seeking removal from this action. Included in the list of
plaintiffs whose signatures appear to be on the Filing who have also sought to remove
themselves from this case without the assessment of a filing fee are: Marcus Barry, Daniel
Diaz, Robert Hunt, and Anteleto Jones. Once these plaintiffs have submitted their notification
to the Court regarding the Filing pursuant to the Order herein, the Court will determine whether
or not to assess a filing fee for these plaintiffs upon their dismissal from this action.
Two plaintiffs, Cevin Stanford and Terry Morgan, failed to submit a Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”) or pay the filing fee pursuant to this Court’s Order
dated April 12, 2017. (Doc. 29, pp. 10-11). However, both of these plaintiffs appear to have
signed the Filing that Plaintiff Bentz intends to be construed as the complaint in this case. While
Plaintiff Morgan expressed an intention to remain a party to this action in a separate filing (Doc.
57), Plaintiff Stanford has not done so. Because they have failed to pay the filing fee and have
not submitted IFP Motions, both Stanford and Morgan will be dismissed from this action. This
Court is incapable of determining at this juncture whether either plaintiff should be assessed a
filing fee, however, and will therefore reserve dismissal of these plaintiffs until they submit a
notification to the Court regarding their signatures on the Filing, pursuant to the Order herein.
Two other plaintiffs, Michael Crenshaw and Elias Diaz, have filed complaints in this

3

action on their own behalves.

Plaintiff Crenshaw filed two documents, both labeled

“Complaint.” (Docs. 55, 59). The documents are very similar, but are not identical, and were
signed on April 17, 2017 (Doc. 55) and April 23, 2017 (Doc. 59). Neither document features a
statement of the claim showing Plaintiff Crenshaw is entitled to relief in compliance with Rule
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, neither document contains a meaningful
request for relief, which is another requirement of Rule 8. Though Plaintiff Crenshaw notes that
he is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in both documents, he does not specify the nature
of the declaration or injunction he is seeking. The Court also notes that the fact that Plaintiff
filed two separate complaints on his own behalf is problematic, but because neither complaint
complies with Rule 8, the Court will not seek to determine which, if either, to consider Plaintiff
Crenshaw’s actual complaint.
Because both of Plaintiff Crenshaw’s complaints (Docs. 55, 59) fail to comply with Rule
8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because they fail to include a statement of the claim
and fail to provide a meaningful request for relief, these complaints (Docs. 55, 59) will be
dismissed. Plaintiff Crenshaw will be granted leave to file another signed complaint in response
to this Court’s March 30, 2017 Order (Doc. 3) within 28 days (June 21, 2017) of this Order.
Plaintiff Crenshaw is reminded that, pursuant to this Court’s Order dated March 30, 2017 (Doc.
3), he should have received a copy of the original Complaint (Doc. 1) in this action for his
signature on or soon after March 30, 2017.
Plaintiff Elias Diaz also filed a Complaint on his own behalf. (Doc. 80). Unlike Plaintiff
Crenshaw’s complaints, Plaintiff Elias Diaz seeks to incorporate the claims as well as the request
for relief found in the original civil rights complaint filed by Plaintiff Bentz into his complaint.
Though Plaintiff Elias Diaz filed his complaint (Doc. 80) after the Court’s deadline for doing so,

4

he submitted a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 62) outlining the reasons as to why his filing
would be late and seeking an extension of the deadline. The Court will therefore consider
Plaintiff Diaz’s filings to be timely, and allow him to remain a part to this case for now.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff Elias Diaz’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 62) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. To the extent Plaintiff
Elias Diaz seeks any more time to file additional documentation in support of his IFP Motion or
Complaint, his motion is denied. However, this Court will consider Plaintiff Elias Diaz’s IFP
Motion (Doc. 81) and Complaint (Doc. 80) to have been timely filed.
Plaintiff Jeff Blaney has filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 65) to comply with
this Court’s Order (Doc. 29) requiring all plaintiffs to return a signed complaint and pay the
filing fee or file an IFP Motion if they desire to remain a party to this action. Plaintiff Blaney
claims to be unaware of the contents of the complaint in this action (Doc. 65, p. 2), and also
seems to be under the impression that he has not signed the complaint, as he has requested an
extension of time in order to potentially accomplish as much. This makes the Court question
whether Plaintiff Blaney’s signature on the Pleading (Doc. 25), which Plaintiff Bentz seeks to be
construed as the complaint in this action, is indeed his own, and if it is, whether he was aware of
what he was signing at the time. This Court will therefore reserve making a decision on Plaintiff
Blaney’s Motion (Doc. 65) until he submits a notification to the Court regarding his signature on
the Filing (Doc. 25) pursuant to the Order herein.
Plaintiff Bentz's Motion Identifying an Unknown John Doe Defendant (Doc. 67) is
STRICKEN. In his Motion (Doc. 67), Plaintiff Bentz seeks to name a defendant in this group
action that was previously unidentified. Plaintiff Betnz is the only individual to have signed the

5

Motion, however, and this Court has issued multiple warnings (Docs. 3, 29, and 50) that such
filings, on behalf of the group of plaintiffs, would be stricken because each Plaintiff must sign
documents for himself and a non-attorney cannot file or sign papers for another litigant. See
Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 831 (7th Cir. 1986); FED. R. CIV. P. 11.
Plaintiff James Barnwell has filed a Motion for Copies (Doc. 72), in which he claims he
was denied access to this Court’s Order dated April 12, 2017 (Doc. 29) and seeks a copy of the
same.

Plaintiff Barnwell’s Motion is GRANTED.

The CLERK is DIRECTED to send

Plaintiff Barnwell a copy of this Court’s Order dated April 12, 2017 (Doc. 29).
The Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docs. 4-16, 30-31, 33, 42, 47, 76,
and 81), Motions to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 22, 77, and 82), and Motion for Service of Process
at Government Expense (Doc. 83) will be addressed in separate orders of this Court.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs CHRIS ALEXANDER, TERRENCE
MILLER, EDDIE BROTHERS, BRANDON HARRIS, EDDIE HILL, KWAYURA
JACKSON, ADALBERTO ANAYA, PEDRO TERRAZAS, TONY WALSH, and
ANTHONY WIGGINS are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice for failing to return a
signed complaint and/or notifying this Court of their desire to be dismissed from this action per
this Court’s Order dated April 12, 2017 (Doc. 29). These plaintiffs will not be assessed a filing
fee and will not be issued a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following plaintiffs shall advise the Court in
writing on or before (June 21, 2017) whether their signature on the Filing (Doc. 25) that
Plaintiff Bentz seeks to be construed as the complaint in this action is their own, and, if so,
whether they were aware that they were signing a pleading for this lawsuit when they signed it,

6

and whether they reviewed the document prior to signing it: JOHN REED, MARCUS BARRY,
KEITH NELSON, MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH, JESSE PEREZ, DANIEL DIAZ, TUAN
FIELDS, ROBERT HUNT, TERRY MORGAN, CEVIN STANFORD, BRETT SHARP,
JAMES BARNWELL, JEFFREY BLANEY, and ANTELETO JONES.

Failure to comply

with this Order may result in dismissal from this action for failure to comply with an order of the
court and/or failure to prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). To enable these plaintiffs to determine
whether they indeed signed and reviewed the Filing, the CLERK is DIRECTED to send each of
the above plaintiffs the first page of allegations in the Filing (Doc. 25, p. 4) and the signature
page of the Filing (Doc. 25, p. 51).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff CRENSHAW’s complaints (Docs. 55, 59)
are DISMISSED for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Plaintiff

Crenshaw has leave to file an amended complaint in response to this Court’s March 30, 2017
Order (Doc. 3), however. If he intends to proceed in this action, Plaintiff Crenshaw must file his
properly signed amended complaint within 28 days (June 21, 2017) of this Order or face
dismissal from this action with prejudice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41. Because he has submitted a
signed complaint, albeit a defective one, Plaintiff Crenshaw will not be exempt from paying the
filing fee whether or not he submits an amended complaint by the deadline.
The CLERK is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to each of the named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are ADVISED that the Complaint is currently awaiting preliminary review by
the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and it has not yet been served on the defendants.
Further action by some of the plaintiffs is required before the Court can complete its preliminary
review of this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. When this review is completed, a copy of the
Court’s order will be forwarded to each plaintiff who remains in the action.

7

Plaintiffs are further ADVISED that each of them is under a continuing obligation to
keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his or her address;
the Court will not independently investigate a plaintiff’s whereabouts. This shall be done in
writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to
comply with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result
in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution as to any plaintiff that fails to comply. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 24, 2017
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States Chief District Judge

8