Brannen Marcure v. Tyler Lynn, 992 F.3d 625

Pro se plaintiff Brannen Marcure sued multiple defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including several police officers.
The officers filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; Marcure filed a late response that was unsigned.
The district court excused the tardiness but ordered Marcure to correct the missing signature within six days under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); he did not.
The court struck the unsigned response and dismissed Marcure’s claims against the officers with prejudice solely because the motion was unopposed, citing a Central District of Illinois local rule.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit (with appointed counsel for Marcure) upheld the striking under Rule 11(a) but reversed the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), holding a court may not grant a 12(b)(6) motion solely because it is unopposed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Marcure's Argument	Officers' Argument	Held
Whether Rule 11(a) requires a court to strike an unsigned filing or whether the court must first find prejudice before striking	Rule 11(a) should be read to allow discretion and require a prejudice inquiry before striking an unsigned filing	Rule 11(a) is mandatory: unsigned papers must be struck unless promptly corrected	Court: Rule 11(a) is mandatory as written; district court did not abuse discretion in striking Marcure’s uncorrected unsigned filing
Whether a district court may grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion solely because it is unopposed (or under a local rule that presumes no opposition)	Courts must address the merits; a movant bears the burden to prove entitlement to dismissal and lack of opposition cannot substitute for that showing; local rules inconsistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) are invalid under Rule 83(a)(1)	Local rules permitting courts to treat motions as unopposed and rule without notice justify dismissal for failure to respond	Court: A movant must establish entitlement to dismissal; courts may not grant a 12(b)(6) motion solely because it is unopposed; local rules cannot supersede Rule 12(b)(6) under Rule 83(a)(1)

Common Cause Ind. v. Lawson, 937 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for Rule 11(a) rulings)
Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc., 200 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review of Rule 11 rulings)
Kovilic Constr. Co. v. Missbrenner, 106 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 1997) (discussed dicta on striking unsigned filings; distinguished)
United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345 (7th Cir. 1987) (involved prompt correction exception to Rule 11(a))
Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commn’ns Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533 (1991) (plain-meaning textual interpretation of rules)
Gunn v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 968 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2020) (movant’s burden to show complaint’s insufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6))
Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2006) (summary-judgment analogy: a movant bears burden even when unopposed)
Bolt v. Loy, 227 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2000) (three bases for dismissing for lack of response: abandonment, failure to prosecute, sanction)
Pomerleau v. W. Springfield Pub. Sch., 362 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2004) (contrasting approach that permits dismissal under local rules; rejected)
Tobel v. City of Hammond, 94 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 1996) (district court’s authority to enforce local rules, discussed and limited)
Stanciel v. Gramley, 267 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2001) (deeming claims confessed where plaintiff effectively waived certain claims; distinguished)