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.

Ebrahime v. Dart

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

October 22, 2012

Daroush EBRAHIME, Plaintiff,
v.
Thomas DART, Sheriff of Cook County, Cook County, et al., Defendants.

Page 778

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 779

Scott David Stein, Bevin B. Seifert, Marvella Donielle McCutcheon, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JEFFREY COLE, United States Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiff has been a pre-trial detainee at Cook County Jail since February

Page 780

2007. His amended complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charges the Sheriff of Cook County, and several individual defendants with various civil rights violations stemming from an attack by a fellow detainee on October 20, 2009. The defendants have moved for summary judgment on those claims that allege they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff by failing to protect him from the attack and failing to respond quickly enough to put a stop to it.

I.

BACKGROUND

A.

Summary Judgment Under Local Rule 56.1

As always, the facts underlying this summary judgment proceeding are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 submissions. " For litigants appearing in the Northern District of Illinois, the Rule 56.1 statement is a critical, and required, component of a litigant's response to a motion for summary judgment." Sojka v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 686 F.3d 394, 398 (7th Cir.2012). Local Rule 56.1 requires a party seeking summary judgment to include with its motion " a statement of material facts as to which the ... party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the ... party to a judgment as a matter of law." Local Rule 56.1(a)(3); Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643 (7th Cir.2008). Each paragraph must refer to the " affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials" that substantiate the asserted facts. Local Rule 56.1(a)(3); F.T.C. v. Bay Area Business Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627, 633 (7th Cir.2005).

The party opposing summary judgment must then respond to the movant's statement of proposed material facts; that response must contain both " a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement," Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B), and a separate statement " consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment," Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C); Ciomber, 527 F.3d at 643. Again, each response, and each asserted fact, must be supported with a reference to the record. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B); Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir.2009); Bay Area Business Council, Inc., 423 F.3d at 633.

The district court is entitled to enforce strict compliance with its local rules regarding summary judgment motions. Yancick v. Hanna Steel Corp., 653 F.3d 532, 537 (7th Cir.2011); Schmidt v. Eagle Waste & Recycling, Inc., 599 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2010). Responses and facts that are not set out and appropriately supported in an opponent's Rule 56.1 response will not be considered, see Shaffer v. American Medical Ass'n, 662 F.3d 439, 442 (7th Cir.2011) (court need not consider any fact not contained in the parties' Rule 56.1 statements); Bay Area Business Council, 423 F.3d at 633 (court properly disregarded affidavits not referenced in 56.1 submission).

B.

Facts

On October 20, 2009, plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee housed in Division 10, Tier 2B of the CCDOC. ( Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (" Def.St. " ), ¶ 15; Plaintiff's Response to Def. St. (" Pl.Rsp. " ), ¶ 15). Officers Jason Bobzin and Thomas Zriny were assigned to the 3 pm-11pm shift on that tier. ( Def.St., ¶ 16; Pl.Rsp., ¶ 16). Sometime between 3 and 4 pm, the plaintiff reported the theft of some commissary item from his table to Officer Zriny. ( Pl.Rsp., ¶ 17; Plaintiff's Local Rule

Page 781

56.1(b)(3)(B) Statement (" Pl.St. " ), ¶ 9; Response to Pl.St. (" Def.Rsp " ), ¶ 9). The plaintiff accused another fellow inmate, Corey Young. ( Pl.St. ¶ 9; Def.Rsp., ¶ 9). The items didn't belong to him; they belonged to two of his associates in the CCDOC, Koh and Diaz. ( Pl.St. ¶ 11; Def.Rsp., ¶ 11). The plaintiff was known to congregate with those two on a regular basis, ...


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.