The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Court
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the court are Becky Sudbrink, who entered an appearance of behalf of Jacksonville Health Care Administration, and Stephen Doolin's unopposed summary judgment motion .
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.
"Summary judgment is the 'put up or shut up' moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2000). 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). In order to be a "genuine" issue, there must be more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "If [the non-movant] does not [meet his burden], summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against [the non-movant]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Further, "[t]he plaintiff cannot merely allege the existence of a factual dispute to defeat summary judgment.. Instead, he must supply evidence sufficient to allow a jury to render a verdict in his favor." Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919, 926 (7th Cir. 2001). Specifically, the non-moving party "must present sufficient evidence to show the existence of each element of its case on which it will bear the burden at trial." Filipovic v. K&R Express Systems, Inc., 176 F.3d 390, 390 (7th Cir. 1999). Failure by the non-movant to meet all of the above requirements subjects him to summary judgment on his claims.
Affidavits must be based on the personal knowledge of the affiant and "set out facts that would be admissible in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (emphasis added). Personal knowledge may include inferences and opinions drawn from those facts. Visser v. Packer Eng. Assoc., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991). "But the inferences and opinions must be grounded in observation or other first-hand personal experience. They must not be based on flights of fancy, speculations, hunches, intuitions or rumors remote from that experience." Visser, 924 F.2d at 659. It is also well settled that "conclusory allegations and self-serving affidavits, if not supported by the record, will not preclude summary judgment. Keri v. Barod of Trustees of Purdue University, 458 F.3d 620, 628 (7th Cir.2006)(citing Haywood v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 121 F.3d 1066, 1071 (7th Cir.1997)).
On June 7, 2007, Plaintiff, Anthony Williams, at that time an inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), and incarcerated at Jacksonville Correctional Center (Jacksonville) filed the instant Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Defendants Doolin and Sudbrink, a Lieutenant with Internal Affairs and the Health Care Unit Administrator, respectively. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that following a fight in which he bit another inmate, he was written an inmate disciplinary report (IDR) for violation of state laws and violent assault. Complaint at 7. Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against by internal affairs because they contacted medical staff and found out Plaintiff was HIV positive prior to writing him the IDR. Complaint at 7. Plaintiff also alleged Health Care violated his "human rights" by disclosing to internal affairs that he was HIV positive without his consent. Complaint at 7-8. The Court found Plaintiff had "possibly stated a claim in that he might have a constitutional right to avoid disclosure of his HIV positive status." August 21, 2007, case management order. Defendants now move for summary judgment.
Undisputed Material Facts
1. Plaintiff was involved in a fight on March 8, 2007, in which he bit another inmate. (Complaint at 6).
2. Defendant Doolin, an Lieutenant with Internal Affairs at Jacksonville, was required by the warden to investigate the fight involving Plaintiff. Exhibit A, affidavit of Stephen Doolin, ¶4.
3. During the course of his investigation into the fight, Defendant Doolin interviewed Plaintiff, who admitted to biting an inmate on the chest during the fight. Exhibit A, affidavit of Stephen Doolin, ¶4.
4. As part of his duties as an Internal Affairs Lieutenant at Jacksonville, Defendant Doolin is required to contact Health Care if there is a fight that involves the potential exchange of bodily fluids to both notify them of the exchange and to find out if there is potential exchange of a communicable disease that could violate IDOC rules or state or federal law. Exhibit A, affidavit of Stephen Doolin, ¶5.
5. Defendant Doolin signs a form that authorizes him to access medical information from Health Care Staff at Jacksonville but requires that he not disclose the information beyond that which is necessary to carry out his ...