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.

Johnson v. Thomas

May 30, 2008

RONALD V. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRIAN THOMAS AND DR. BEDNARZ, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

Order

This case proceeds on the plaintiff's claim that he was administered psychotropic medication against his will. The defendants have filed a summary judgment motion to which the plaintiff has not responded.

Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Any discrepancies in the factual record should be evaluated in the non-movant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A party opposing summary judgment bears the burden to respond, not simply by resting on its own pleading but by "set[ting] out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

Central District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1(D)(2) provides that ". . .[F]ailure to respond shall be deemed an admission of the motion [for summary judgment]." Additionally, the plaintiff was warned that the defendants' statement of facts would be accepted as true if the plaintiff failed to submit evidence to contradict those statements. Rule 56 Notice, d/e 35; See also Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 682-83 (7th Cir. 2003), quoting Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)( . . . "[F]ailure to respond by the non-movant as mandated by the local rules results in an admission. . . ." (citation omitted)).

Undisputed Facts

These facts are taken largely verbatim from defendants' memorandum, to the extent supported by cites to the record and material to the motion.

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility.

2. Plaintiff suffers from a mental illness.

3. Currently, Plaintiff takes risperidone, a psychotropic medication.

4. Plaintiff was taken to the infirmary on November 9, 2006 after he decided not to take his medication.

5. Since Plaintiff would not consent to his medication, proceedings were started in which a court order would be issued to enforce medication.

6. On November 15, 2006, Plaintiff signed a consent form for his medication.

7. According to Dr. Bednarz, Plaintiff's consent form was intended to be in effect for one year, but was mistakenly dated to last only one day, from ...


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.