United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
EDWARD L. BROWN, Plaintiff,
S.A. GODINZ, MICHAEL LEMKE, G. LUSCHINGER, and D. COLEMAN, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Z. Lee United States District Judge
se Plaintiff Edward Brown, a prisoner at Stateville
Correctional Center (“Stateville”), has brought
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendants S.A. Godinez, Michael Lemke, Jon
Luchsinger, and D. Coleman. Plaintiff alleges that he has
been subjected to a wide range of unconstitutional conditions
of confinement at Stateville. Defendant Luchsinger has moved
for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein,
Luchsinger's motion is granted.
for summary judgment in the Northern District of Illinois are
governed by Local Rule 56.1. “The obligation set forth
in Local Rule 56.1 ‘is not a mere formality.'
Rather, ‘[i]t follows from the obligation imposed by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) on the party opposing summary judgment to
identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for
trial.'” Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d
895, 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Waldridge v. Am.
Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 924 (7th Cir. 1994)). The
Seventh Circuit has “routinely held that a district
court may strictly enforce compliance with its local rules
regarding summary judgment motions.” Yancick v.
Hanna Steel Corp., 653 F.3d 532, 537 (7th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the party moving for summary
judgment to provide “a statement of material facts as
to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue
and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter
of law.” LR 56.1(a)(3). In addition, where the
nonmovant is pro se, Local Rule 56.2 requires the
movant to provide a “Notice to Pro Se Litigant
Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment.” LR 56.2. The
nonmovant, whether pro se or not, 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.” LR 56.1(b)(3)(B). In addition, the nonmovant
must present a separate “statement, consisting of short
numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the
denial of summary judgment.” LR 56.1(b)(3)(C).
a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts
set forth in the moving party's statement in the manner
dictated by [Local Rule 56.1], those facts are deemed
admitted for purposes of the [summary judgment]
motion.” Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559
F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009); accord LR
56.1(b)(3)(C). Furthermore, district courts, in their
discretion, may “choose[ ] to ignore and not consider
the additional facts that a litigant has proposed” if
the litigant has failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1.
Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., LLC, 401 F.3d 803,
809-10 (7th Cir. 2005). Although pro se plaintiffs
are generally entitled to lenient standards, they are
required to comply with local procedural rules governing
motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., Cady v.
Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006).
moving for summary judgment, Luchsinger filed and served a
“Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for
Summary Judgment” as required by Local Rule 56.2.
See Notice Pursuant to Local Rule 56.2, ECF No. 94.
The notice detailed the requirements of the local rules
governing summary judgment, and it warned Plaintiff that his
failure to controvert the facts set forth in Luchsinger's
Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement would cause those facts to be
deemed admitted. See Id. Despite these admonitions,
Plaintiff failed to either respond to Luchsinger's Local
Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement or submit his own statement of
additional facts. Accordingly, the facts set forth in
Luchsinger's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement are deemed
admitted to the extent they are supported by evidence in the
record. See Cracco, 559 F.3d at 632.
is an inmate who has been incarcerated at Stateville since
October 2001. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶¶ 1,
4. Defendant Jon Luchsinger worked as the Chief Engineer at
Stateville from June 2003 to December 2010. Id.
¶ 5. Luchsinger ended his employment at Stateville on
December 15, 2010. Id. ¶ 7.
lawsuit, Plaintiff asserts constitutional claims based on the
conditions of his confinement at Stateville. Id.
¶ 19. In particular, he complains of contaminated water,
poor sanitation and ventilation, a pest infestation,
lead-based paint, excessive heat, lack of fire safety, and
sleep deprivation. Id. ¶ 20. During his
deposition, Plaintiff testified that his claims are based
upon conditions from the time period from March 2011 to the
present. Id. ¶ 21; Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3)
Stmt., Ex. A, Pl.'s Dep., at 11:6-10. In addition, he
clarified that his only claim against Luchsinger is his claim
regarding contaminated water. Pl.'s Dep. at 47:6-11,
March 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed his first grievance regarding
the conditions of his confinement. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3)
Stmt. ¶ 8; see also Pl.'s Dep. at 10:1-5.
In this grievance, Plaintiff complained about contaminated
water, inadequate cleaning supplies, poor ventilation, pests,
toxic paint, cell-house lighting, and double-man cells.
Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff filed the grievance as an
emergency grievance with the prison warden. Id.
¶ 11. After the warden determined that the grievance was
not an emergency, Plaintiff sent the grievance to the
Administrative Review Board (“the Board”).
Id. ¶ 12. On April 20, 2011, the Board returned
the grievance to Plaintiff along with a request for
additional information. Id. ¶ 13. Specifically,
the Board requested copies of Plaintiff's
“Committed Person's Grievance” and
“Committed Person's Grievance Report.”
Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt., Ex. D, at 4. Plaintiff did
not respond to this request. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt.
two years later, on April 21, 2013, and May 6, 2013,
Plaintiff filed grievances regarding the same conditions
described in his first grievance. Id.; see
also Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt., Ex. B, at 28-34
(grievance of 4/21/13); id., Ex. D, at 16 (grievance
of 5/6/13). The Board denied these grievances on April 21,
2014. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 17.
Apart from his 2011 grievance and his two 2013 grievances,
Plaintiff has filed no other grievances regarding the
conditions at Stateville. Id. ¶ 18; see
also Pl.'s Dep. at 102:12-19.
has never had any conversations or communications with
Luchsinger. Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 22; see
also Pl.'s Dep. at 85:19-86:2. During his
deposition, he explained that he named Luchsinger as a
defendant only because he obtained Luchsinger's name from
a bulletin posted within Stateville. Pl.'s Dep. at
47:6-18, 85:1-10. The bulletin, which is dated December 3,
2003, provided notice that radium in Stateville's water
had exceeded certain limits in violation of regulations set
by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Def.'s LR
56.1(a)(3) Stmt., Ex. B, at 77. The last sentence of the
bulletin reads: “If you have any questions or comments
in regards to this violation, please feel free to give Jon
Luchsinger a call.” Id.