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.

Washington v. Hanke

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

December 2, 2016

Sean Washington, Plaintiff,
v.
Don T. Hanke, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Philip G. Reinhard Judge.

         For the reasons stated below, defendants' motions for summary judgment [84]; [87] are granted. Plaintiff's motion to strike [92] and Dr. Dominguez's motion to strike [96] are both denied. Civil case terminated.

         STATEMENT - OPINION

         This matter arises out of plaintiff Sean Washington's Third Amended Complaint against several healthcare professionals at Dixon Correctional Center, Dr. Bessie Dominguez, Director of Nursing Travis Hantke, and Nurse Lynn Chattic. See [67]. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Dominguez, Nurse Hantke, and Nurse Chattic were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when he complained to them that his wheelchair, to which he was confined, had a wobbly wheel. Plaintiff was directed by several of the defendants to sign up for a wheelchair repair clinic, but before the clinic took place the wheel popped off his wheelchair and he suffered injuries. Plaintiff claims 42 U.S.C. § 1983 deliberate indifference against all parties, as well as related claims under the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101.

         On July 11, 2016, Dr. Dominguez filed a motion for summary judgment [84] and memorandum in support [85]. Nurse Hantke and Nurse Chattic also filed a joint motion for summary judgment [87] and memorandum [88]. All three defendants filed a joint Rule 56.1 statement of material facts [86].

         On September 27, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendants' Rule 56.1 statement and memorandum in opposition to all defendants' motions for summary judgment [92], as well as a response to the defendants' 56.1 statement [92-11], and statement of additional material facts, which was later filed as a separate docket entry [103].

         On October 18, 2016, Dr. Dominguez filed a reply and motion to strike plaintiff's statement of additional facts [96]. Nurse Hantke and Nurse Chattic filed a joint reply [98]. All defendants filed a joint response to plaintiff's statement of material facts [97]. The foregoing matters are now ripe for the court's review.

         On summary judgment, the court construes all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Schepers v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 691 F.3d 909, 913 (7th Cir. 2012). The court does not weigh evidence or determine the credibility of witness testimony. O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011). Instead, the court only grants summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). That said, Rule 56 “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

         Prior to addressing the merits of defendants' motion, it is necessary to set forth the undisputed facts located in the parties' Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Material Fact, as well as plaintiff's version of relevant disputed facts. In addition, the court is cognizant of its obligation to construe all disputed and undisputed facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff and does so accordingly. See Schepers, 691 F.3d at 913.

         A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

         1. The parties' motions to strike.

         As noted, plaintiff has filed a motion to strike the defendants' Rule 56.1 joint statement of undisputed material facts, on the grounds that “Defendants have blatantly failed to follow Local Rule 56.1's requirement that each paragraph contain one or two individual allegations.” See [92] at 4. Defendants respond that each of their paragraphs are focused on a single subject. The court has reviewed the relevant paragraphs and agrees with defendants. As such, plaintiff's motion to strike [92] is denied.

         Dr. Dominguez has also filed a motion to strike plaintiff's statement of additional facts, on the grounds that it was submitted as an exhibit rather than a separate document and did not include relevant citations to the record. See [96] at 2. The court notes that plaintiff has largely rectified these errors after being allowed by Magistrate Judge Johnston to re-file his statement of ...


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.