Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holliday v. Williams

June 8, 2006

XAVIER HOLLIDAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
OFFICER DOUG WILLIAMS, OFFICER KIRK PATTISON, OFFICER RONNIE WADDLE, OFFICE BADGE #1195, OFFICER GILLIAM, OFFICER LANDI, OFFICER COLLINS, AND THE CITY OF ROCK ISLAND, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

ORDER

This matter is now before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment [#19] is GRANTED.

JURISDICTION

The Court has original jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the claim arises under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.

LOCAL RULE 7.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56

Initially, the Court notes that Holliday failed to file any response to the pending motion for summary judgment; the time period for doing so has lapsed, and no extension has been sought. By virtue of this failure, the Motion is now deemed uncontested pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), and the Court may proceed to rule without further notice.

The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly . . . sustained the entry of summary judgment where the non-movant has failed to [respond] in the form called for by the pertinent rule and thereby concedes the movant's version of the facts." Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir. 1994). Despite the fact that he received written notice informing him of the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1(B), Holiday has made no attempt to respond to the pending motion. Accordingly, the Court will treat Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts as admitted and the Motion for Summary Judgment as unopposed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Xavier Holliday ("Holliday"), has had many encounters with the Rock Island Police Department. On September 5, 2001, Holliday received a traffic citation from Officer Doug Williams ("Williams") for operating a vehicle with no valid license. The case was dismissed after the Court found that Holliday had become compliant by obtaining his license. On February 15, 2002, he was issued a traffic citation for speeding. He posted his driver's license as bond and pled guilty to the offense.

On July 26, 2003, Holliday was arrested by Officer Ronnie Waddle ("Waddle") and Sergeant Vernard Gillman ("Gillman") for driving on a suspended license. This case was subsequently dismissed. On February 1, 2004, Officer Benjamin Smith ("Smith") arrested Holliday for the same offense. This case was also dismissed. On March 8, 2003, Holliday was given a notice to appear on a traffic citation for the offense of operating an uninsured motor vehicle by Officer Kirk Pattison ("Pattison"). He pled guilty to the charges and was ordered to pay a fine and court costs totaling $200.00. On July 6, 2003, Holliday was given a notice to appear for operating a vehicle with an expired registration but was not taken into custody. This case was also dismissed.

On June 23, 2004, Holliday brought this action. He subsequently filed an Amended Complaint alleging malicious prosecution and false arrest against all Defendants. The malicious prosecution claim against Officers Collins and Landi and municipal liability claim against the City of Rock Island were dismissed from the case. Accordingly, all that remains in the case at the present time are false arrest claims against Defendants Williams, Pattison, Waddle, Gilliam, and Badge No. 1195. Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Holliday has failed to respond to the Motion, which results in the Motion being deemed undisputed, and this Order follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Since Holliday is representing himself pro se, the Court will construe the complaint liberally and will not hold it "to the stringent standards expected of pleadings drafted by lawyers." McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F. 3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000). "Therefore, a pro se civil rights complaint may only be dismissed if it is beyond a doubt that there is no set of facts under which the plaintiff could obtain relief." Id.

Summary judgment should be granted where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party has the responsibility of informing the Court of portions of the record or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a triable issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party may meet its burden of showing an absence of disputed material facts by demonstrating "that there is an absence ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.