John Taylor, Jr. v. James Brown, 787 F.3d 851

Background

John Taylor, an Illinois prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint containing multiple claims; the magistrate judge identified two viable claims: Count 1 (medical indifference) and Count 3 (failure to protect by Officer James Brown).
Magistrate judge issued a show-cause order giving Taylor until July 13 to either voluntarily dismiss one claim to avoid severance and a second $350 filing fee or face severance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
Taylor prepared a response on July 11 electing to voluntarily dismiss Count 3 and gave it to a Stateville law-library paralegal for e-filing; the document was not uploaded to the court docket before the deadline but was later mailed in hard copy to defense counsel.
The magistrate judge, finding no objection on file, severed Count 3 on July 22 into a new case (631 Case) and assessed a second filing fee; Taylor later had the July 11 response e-filed on August 4.
Officer Brown moved to dismiss the 631 Case on the ground Taylor’s July 11 filing was timely under the prison mailbox rule; the district court denied that motion, dismissed the 631 Case with prejudice for failure to pay the fee, and taxed costs against Taylor.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held Taylor’s July 11 submission qualified under the prison mailbox rule, construed his filing as a Rule 15(a) amendment request (to drop a claim), vacated the dismissal and cost order, and remanded for proceedings consistent with treating the July 11 filing as timely.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taylor’s July 11 submission was timely under the prison mailbox rule	Taylor delivered his response to prison staff before the July 13 deadline; filing is deemed filed when tendered to prison staff	The court contended the document was not on file by the deadline; severance was proper	Held: prison mailbox rule applies to documents tendered to prison staff for e-filing/uploads; Taylor’s submission was timely
Proper procedural mechanism to drop a claim pre-severance	Taylor intended to voluntarily dismiss Count 3 per the court’s option	Court treated severance as appropriate and created separate action	Held: dropping an individual claim in situ should be treated as a Rule 15(a) amendment, not a Rule 41(a) dismissal of the entire action
Whether severance and assessment of a second filing fee were correct	Taylor argued he complied and thus should avoid severance and the second fee	Court severed claims and imposed new fee when no opposition appeared on the docket	Held: because Taylor’s timely submission should have been honored, severance and new fee were improper; relief warranted on remand
Whether remand/further factfinding required on timeliness under mailbox rule	Taylor provided sworn affidavit and documentary evidence of tendering; Brown conceded applicability	Defendant had waived challenge to qualification for mailbox rule; district court didn’t allow proof	Held: no remand for additional factfinding was necessary given concession and affidavit; court vacated dismissal and cost order and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion

Key Cases Cited

Hurlow v. United States, 726 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2013) (describing the prison mailbox rule for appeals)
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (prisoner’s notice of appeal deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities)
Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2012) (application of mailbox rule beyond notices of appeal)
Edwards v. United States, 266 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2001) (mailbox rule applies to most district-court filings)
Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 2001) (Rule 41(a) concerns dismissal of entire actions, not individual claims)
McGee v. Bartow, 593 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2010) (pro se filings construed liberally)
Gaffney v. Riverboat Servs. of Ind., Inc., 451 F.3d 424 (7th Cir. 2006) (standard of review and effects of severance)
Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2014) (review standard for denial of Rule 15(a) amendment)
Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm’t Grp., 493 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1989) (federal rules given their plain meaning)