Bentz v. Mulholland et al

Filing 77

ORDER re 73 Notice of Contempt of Court filed by Plaintiff Bentz. The request for sanctions is DENIED. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 5/11/2021. (jrj)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID ROBERT BENTZ,
#S03210,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-01064-SPM

WILLIAM QUALLS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the “Notice of Contempt of Court” filed by Plaintiff
Bentz. (Doc. 73). Bentz alleges that he is being denied use of the law library and e-filing system
at Menard Correctional Center. As a result, he has been forced to mail his court documents using
the United States Postal Service. Bentz also claims he is not receiving most Notice of Electronic
Filings (“NEFs”) and is receiving court deadline notices after the deadlines have passed. He asks
the Court to impose sanctions upon Defendants and/or the Warden of Menard and Menard
Correctional Center. Defendants have filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 76).
Because Bentz has failed to adhere to instructions given by the judges in this district to
provide full details of his allegations when filing motions and to refrain from filing duplicative
documents in multiple cases, the request for sanctions is denied. As Defendants point out in their
response, Bentz has repeatedly been instructed to “provide something more than generalize
assertions…[and] to include concrete facts and details” when filing motions and pleadings with
the Court. See Bentz v. Threadgille, No. 17-cv-01384 (Docs. 86, 100). See also Bentz v. Atchinson,
No. 14-cv-001132 (Doc. 105) (denying two motions for contempt because Bentz failed “to
specifically identify any documents that were not actually filed”); Bentz v. Hughs, No. 13-cvPage 1 of 2

01280 (Doc. 105) (noting that Bentz’s reasons for requesting copies of a transcript were “vague”);
Bentz v. Qualls, No. 14-cv-00562 (Doc. 50) (stating that Bentz’s “generalized allegation of
harassment and threats is insufficient to justify issuance of a preliminary injunction”); Bentz v.
Lindenberg, No. 15-cv-00121 (Doc. 118) (denying motions for contempt for failing to indicate
what documents have not been filed with the court or how he has been prejudiced); Bentz v. Maue,
16-cv-00854 (Doc. 200) (denying motion for status for failure to provide anything more than
general assertions). He has also been warned to refrain from filing the same motions in multiple
cases, as it “wastes judicial resources and creates a risk of inconsistent opinions at the district court
level.” Bentz v. Lindenberg, No. 18-cv-00016 (Doc. 13). See also Bentz v. Maue, No. 16-cv- 00854
(Docs. 43, 50, 52, 251). Bentz has disregarded these instructions. He filed the Notice of Contempt
in this case and six others and fails to provide “concrete facts” regarding his allegations and how
they relate to this case. Therefore, the request for sanctions is DENIED. The Motion to Dismiss
for Sanctions filed by Defendants remains pending. (Doc. 72).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 11, 2021
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2