United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. Zagel, United States District Judge.
Corey Vincent Lard, presently a pretrial detainee as Cook
County Jail, brought this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that
Defendants, Superintendent Arce and Correctional Officer
Crosby, failed to protect him from an attack by another
detainee. Defendants have moved for summary judgment. For the
reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is granted.
with the local rules, Defendants filed a Local Rule
56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed facts and served Plaintiff
a Local Rule 56.2 Notice, which explains in detail the
requirements of Local Rule 56.1.
Rule 56.1(b)(3) requires that the opposing party's
response to the movant's statement of undisputed facts
must respond to each numbered paragraph and include specific
references to supporting materials for those statements that
are disputed. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B). In addition, the opposing
party must submit their own statement of any additional facts
that require denial of summary judgment, including references
to supporting materials to support the additional statement
of additional facts. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C).
failed to respond in any manner to Defendants' motion,
including failing to respond to Defendants' undisputed
facts or submitting his own statement of any additional facts
that require denial of summary judgment.
status as a pro se litigant does not excuse him from
complying with Local Rule 56.1. See McNeil v. United
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ("we have never
suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation
should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who
proceed without counsel"); Coleman v. Goodwill
Indus. o/Se. Wis., Inc., 423 F.App'x 642, 643 (7th
Cir. 2011) ("Though courts are solicitous of pro se
litigants, they may nonetheless require strict compliance
with local rules."); Wilson v. Kautex, Inc.,
371 F.App'x 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2010) ("strictly
enforcing Local Rule 56.1 was well within the district
court's discretion, even though Wilson is a pro se
litigant") (citations omitted); Cady v.
Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006)
("even pro se litigants must follow rules of
civil procedure"). Given Plaintiffs failure to comply
with Local Rule 56.1(b), Defendants' Local Rule
56.1(a)(3) statements are deemed admitted. See N.D.
111. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C) ("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."); Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc.,
667 F.3d 877, 880-81, 884 (7th Cir. 2012); Parra v.
Neal, 614 F.3d 635, 636 (7th Cir. 2010); Rao v.
BPProds. N. Am., Inc., 589 F.3d 389, 393 (7th Cir.
2009); Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d
635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming the district
courts's refusal to consider plaintiffs Rule 56.1
response that did not comply with local rule); Raymond v.
Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir. 2006);
Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403
F.3d 940, 943-44 (7th Cir. 2005); Smith v. Lamz, 321
F.3d 680, 682-83 (7th Cir. 2003).
on the above, the pertinent facts are as follows:
was incarcerated at the Cook County Jail during the relevant
time period. (Defs' 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 1.)
Plaintiff was housed in Division I from June 6, 2013 to April
2014. (Id., ¶ 3.) During his incarceration in
Division I, Plaintiff was never involved in any fights or
incidents with officers. (Id., ¶ 4.) From
Division I, Plaintiff was sent to segregation in Division IX,
after he received a disciplinary ticket for a shank found in
his cell. (Id., ¶ 5.) Prior to May 23, 2014,
Plaintiff did not have any problems with anyone on the
segregation tier. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 15.) Prior
to May 23, 2014, there were no signs of trouble on the tier
among the detainees. (Id., ¶ 14.)
segregation, detainees are allowed out of their cell for one
hour a day. (Id., ¶ 6.) Detainees are not told
ahead of time what time they will be let out of their cell.
(Id., ¶ 26.) During the time outside their
cell, the detainees are handcuffed. (Id.) There are
two correctional officers assigned to segregation during each
shift. (Id., ¶ 7.) There are twenty-two cells
located on the segregation tier in Division DC, Tier 1-H, and
each cell houses two detainees. (Id., ¶ 12.)
The normal protocol in segregation is to let out the
detainees housed in two adjacent cells at a time.
(Id., ¶ 13.)
22, 2014, Plaintiff and another detainee, named "Lacey,
" got into an argument over Plaintiff having an extra
dinner tray. (Id., ¶ 19.) The next morning,
Lacey punched Plaintiff while Lacey was handing out food
trays and Plaintiff and Lacey fought. (Id.)
Plaintiff was not seriously injured as a result of the fight.
(Id., ¶ 20.) No incident report or disciplinary
charges were filed regarding the fight, and Plaintiff did not
file a grievance regarding the fight. (Id.,
¶¶ 21-22.) Plaintiff did not ask to be placed in
protective custody after the fight as he felt that incident
was "just a fight" and he did not think his life
was in "danger." (Id., ¶ 24.)
Plaintiff did not plan any type of retaliation against Lacey
and he thought the incident was going to be "swept under
the rug." (Id., ¶ 25.)
25, 2014, Plaintiff was let out of his cell with his cellmate
between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. (Id., ¶ 26.) At
the time Plaintiff and his cellmate were let out of their
cell, Lacey was already out of his cell and on the telephone
in the dayroom. (Id., ¶ 27.) Officer Crosby was
on shift that evening on Plaintiffs tier. (Id.,
¶ 28.) Plaintiff told Officer Crosby that he was not
supposed to be let out with Lacey. (Id., ¶ 29.)
Officer Crosby asked Plaintiff if he wanted to refuse to
leave his cell; Plaintiff denied any intent to refuse and he
existed his cell. (Id., ¶ 30.) A detainee can
refuse to come out of their cell. (Id., ¶ 31.)
being let out of their cell, Plaintiff and his cellmate went
to the shower area. (Id., ¶ 32.) While
Plaintiff was in the shower, Officer Crosby loosened
Lacey's handcuffs after Lacey complained they were too
tight. (Id., ¶¶ 37-38.) In order for
Plaintiff to get out of the shower, Officer Crosby had to
unlock a shower gate. (Id., ¶ 35.) After
Plaintiff was let out of the shower, he went to the dayroom.
(Id., ¶ 39.) At some point, Lacey ran toward
Plaintiff with two blades. (Id., ¶ 40.)
Approximately two minutes passed between the time that
Plaintiff was attacked by Lacey and the time that officers
entered the tier. (Id., ¶ 41.)
May 23 and May 25, Plaintiff did not say anything about the
first incident to any officers because he did not want to
seem like a snitch. (Id., ¶ 42.) Plaintiff did
not have any conversation with ...