United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MANISH S. SHAH, District Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Woods, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Sheridan Correctional Center, brought this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was unlawfully held in custody at Stateville Correctional Center for approximately two months after November 28, 2013-the date he says he should have been released. According to Woods, deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials led to his prolonged incarceration. Michael Magana, the acting Warden at Stateville Correctional Center from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014, is the sole defendant to this action. Defendant Magana has moved for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted.
Local Rule 56.1
Local Rule 56.1 governs the procedures for filing and responding to motions for summary judgment in this court. Local Rule 56.1(a) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue" for trial. See Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004). "All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party." L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C). The party opposing summary judgment shall submit "a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment." Id.
To defeat summary judgment, the opposing party "must file a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement" of fact. Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the case of any disagreement, the opposing party must reference "affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials." Id. "[M]ere disagreement with the movant's asserted facts is inadequate if made without reference to specific supporting material." Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse him from complying with Local Rule 56.1. See Greer v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 267 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2001); Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006).
Consistent with the Local Rules, defendant Magana filed a statement of uncontested material facts along with his motion for summary judgment. , Def. Stmt. of Fact ("DSOF"). Each relevant substantive assertion of fact in the Local Rule 56.1(a) statement is supported by evidentiary material in the record. Also consistent with the Local Rules, Magana filed and served on Woods a Local Rule 56.2 Notice, which explained in detail the requirements of Local Rule 56.1. .
In response, Woods filed a single document titled "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment." , ("Pl. Resp."). Plaintiff's response appears to consist of a response to defendant's statement of facts ( see Pl. Resp. at 3-4); a statement of additional facts ( see Pl. Resp. at 5-6); and a brief in response to defendant's arguments ( see Pl. Resp. at 7-15). Woods, however, did not properly dispute defendant's facts because his response contains no citations to the record but rather references information contained in his separate statement of facts. See N.D.Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B) (explaining that any response to the moving party's statement of facts must include "in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon"). Similarly, many of Woods's additional facts are not properly supported by admissible evidence or are purely argumentative and therefore will not be considered.
Accordingly, defendant Magana's facts are admitted. See N.D.Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C); Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 880 (7th Cir. 2012); Parra v. Neal, 614 F.3d 635, 636 (7th Cir. 2010). To the extent there are other undisputed material facts in the record, those facts are also considered.
In 2011, Plaintiff Anthony Woods was arrested on charges of violating an order of protection. See DSOF ¶ 5. His criminal case was assigned case number 11 CR 2113401. DSOF ¶ 6. Woods subsequently was convicted on the charges and sentenced to two years of imprisonment and one year of mandatory supervised release ("MSR"). DSOF ¶¶ 5, 6.
On November 28, 2012, Woods was released on MSR. DSOF ¶ 7. The conditions of Woods's MSR mandated that he not commit any other crimes and that he remain at least 500 feet away from his victim. DSOF ¶¶ 9, 10. Woods understood that if he violated the terms of his MSR, his MSR could be terminated and he would be required to serve the remainder of his sentence. DSOF ¶ 11.
Woods was arrested twice while on MSR. On August 22, 2013, Woods was convicted of a misdemeanor theft that occurred the previous day. DSOF ¶ 13. Approximately one month later, Woods visited his victim's place of employment on three occasions, in violation of the provision of his MSR that required him to remain at least 500 feet away from his victim. DSOF ¶¶ 15, 16. As a result, on September 27, 2013, Woods was arrested. DSOF ¶ 16; see Ex. C-1 to DSOF at IDOC000003. Woods also was charged with and subsequently convicted of stalking as a result of his conduct in September 2013. DSOF ¶ 17. He was sentenced to four years of imprisonment on the stalking conviction, with a projected parole date of December 7, 2015 (DSOF ¶¶ 17, 19); the dates of his conviction and sentencing are unclear.
On December 3, 2013, the Prisoner Review Board declared Woods in violation of his MSR "as of 3/14/13" and revoked Woods's MSR. Ex. C-1 to DSOF at IDOC000002. The rationale given for the revocation was that Woods committed the criminal offense of theft on August 22, 2013, and that he violated the no-contact term of his MSR. Id. Woods's sentence on case no. 11 CR 2113401 was then recalculated, resulting in a "projected discharge/out date" of February 4, 2014. Ex. C-1 to DSOF at IDOC000001. Woods was transported from Cook County Jail to Stateville Correctional Center the next day ( see Pl. Resp. at 8 ("I ain't get to Stateville until ...