Bentz v. Mulholland et al

Filing 78

ORDER GRANTING 72 Motion for Sanctions. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 5/27/2021. (anb2)

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

Case No. 18-CV-01064-SPM

WILLIAM QUALLS, et al.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion for sanctions (Doc. 72) filed by
Defendants Krista Allsup, Fritsche, Jason Furlow, Thread Gill, Dean Gross, Mr. James,
Jacqueline Lashbrook, Michael Maciura, Miss Mears, William Qualls, and Yankey
(“IDOC Defendants”). The IDOC Defendants allege that Plaintiff David Robert Bentz
failed to respond to their interrogatories and requests for production, even after they
mailed Bentz a letter attempting to resolve any potential dispute surrounding the
request. The IDOC Defendants then filed the motion for sanctions in October 2020. In
the interim, the Court stayed the dispositive motion deadline (Doc. 75). Bentz did not
file a response to the motion, but did file a motion for contempt of court in December
2020, which the Court denied (Docs. 73, 76).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A)(ii) states that the Court may order
sanctions via motion if “a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under
Rule 33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve answers, objections, or
a written response.” The sanctions options include dismissing the action or proceeding
in whole. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(d)(3) (referencing, inter alia, 37(b)(2)(A)(v)). Dismissal
Page 1 of 2

with prejudice is an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with discovery orders.
See Jacobs v. Frank, 349 Fed. App’x 106, 107 (7th Cir. 2009); Aura Lamp & Lighting,
Inc. v. Int’l Trading Corp., 325 F.3d 903, 910 (7th Cir. 2003); Newman v. Metro. Pier &
Exposition Auth., 962 F.2d 589, 591 (7th Cir. 1992).
The Court finds that Bentz failed to comply with discovery orders by not
responding to the IDOC Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production, even
after a reminder letter. Bentz has an extensive litigation history. He has filed 24
lawsuits in this district alone. It is clear Bentz is an experienced litigant and would
know that he must respond to discovery. The only appropriate sanction in this case is
the dismissal of Bentz’s claims. Although the Court is required to consider other
sanctions before dismissal, other sanctions would not be effective against Bentz. See
Rivera, 767 F.3d at 686-87; Hoskins, 633 F.3d at 544. Staying the proceedings clearly
did not work. Further, an order striking pleadings or excluding evidence from Bentz
would most likely result in summary judgment for the defendants and a dismissal of the
case. Thus, the only appropriate sanction for Bentz is dismissal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for sanctions is GRANTED.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 27, 2021
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge
Page 2 of 2