United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
S. Shah United States District Judge
Charles Allen, a former state prisoner, brought this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at Stateville’s Northern
Reception Center. Defendants, Superintendent Tracey Engelson
and Correctional Sergeant Dennis Phillips, move for summary
judgment. For the reasons that follow, defendants’
motion is granted.
Local Rule 56.1
Local Rule 56.1(a)(3), the moving party must provide “a
statement of material facts as to which the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue.” Ammons v.
Aramark Unif. Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir.
2004) (quoting N.D.Ill. L.R. 56.1(a)); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c). The opposing party must then “file
‘a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving
party’s statement, including, in the case of any
disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of
the record, and other supporting materials relied
upon.’” Cracco v. Vitran, Exp.,
Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting
N.D.Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B)). The opposing party may also
present a separate statement of additional facts that
requires the denial of summary judgment. See Ciomber v.
Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643 (7th Cir. 2008)
(citing N.D.Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C)).
move to strike Plaintiff’s entire response to their
56.1 Statement on the grounds that plaintiff’s response
is improper because (in some places) it: (1) consists of
legal arguments and conclusions; (2) improperly adds new
facts that are unrelated to refuting defendants’
statement of facts; and (3) lacks citations to the record.
The motion to strike is denied because striking the response
in its entirety is unnecessary and would be an overly broad
sanction in light of plaintiff’s partial compliance
with the local rule. Defendants’ arguments as to
specific responses, and for which they include an explanation
and supporting argument, have been considered. See also
Bentz v. Hardy, 638 Fed.Appx. 535, 536 (7th Cir. 2016)
(finding that, even where plaintiff failed to respond
properly to statement of uncontested facts, “[t]hat
misstep was not fatal” because defendants chiefly
relied upon plaintiff’s discovery deposition as their
evidentiary source, rendering his account of prison
facts, therefore, are taken from Defendants’ N.D.Ill.
Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Material Facts
(“SOF”) and facts included in Plaintiff’s
response and supporting affidavits, where he and/or the
affiants are competent to testify as to those facts or they
are supported by record evidence. See Koszola v. Bd. of
Educ. of City of Chi., 385 F.3d 1104, 1109 (7th
Cir. 2004). The court gives deference to plaintiff’s
version of the facts where they are properly presented and
supported by admissible evidence. Where defendants’
statements are properly supported and are not disputed by
admissible evidence or through a proper Local Rule 56.1
response, the statements are deemed undisputed. See
Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C).
arrived at NRC from Cook County Jail on July 29, 2014, and
for the next six days, until August 4, 2014, was incarcerated
in a bullpen. Dkt. 51, Defs’ SOF and Dkt. 68, P’s
Resp. at ¶¶ 6, 8. Plaintiff was then transferred to
a cell. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff’s claims in
this lawsuit are limited to the six-day period of his
incarceration in the NRC bullpen. Id. During that
time period, defendant Engelson was Superintendent of NRC and
defendant Phillips was a Correctional Sergeant. Id.
identified three adverse living conditions in the NRC
bullpen: (1) being forced to sleep on the floor; (2) being
exposed to mice that climbed across him; and (3) being
exposed to birds that defecated on his sheet. Dkt. 68,
P’s Resp. at ¶ 9.
plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he “slept on
the floor, ” he testified at his deposition, and does
not dispute, that he slept on a mattress during each night of
his incarceration in the NRC bullpen. Dkt. 51, Defs’
SOF and Dkt. 68, P’s Resp. at ¶ 11. On some of
those nights the mattress was in a plastic structure, which
plaintiff referred to as a “little boat thing, ”
and on some nights the mattress did not fit in the structure,
so was placed directly on the floor. Id. Plaintiff
was also issued two sheets and a blanket. Id. ¶
Mice and birds
testified and does not dispute that he saw a mouse
“four or five times” during his bullpen
incarceration. Id. ¶ 13. On one occasion, a
mouse ran across plaintiff’s sheet. Id. ¶
14. Plaintiff lost sleep, and stayed awake, because he feared
mice crawling on him. Dkt. 51, ...