United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FREDERICK J. KAPALA JUDGE.
Shawn Tompkins, a prisoner currently incarcerated at
Taylorville Correctional Center, has brought this pro
se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, claiming a denial of medical care when he was
incarcerated at Whiteside County Jail. Before the Court is
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt 44.)
Defendants contend that summary judgment is appropriate
because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies
before filing this federal lawsuit. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court denies Defendants' motion. A hearing
pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th
Cir. 2008), may be scheduled to resolve disputed issues of
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff is
proceeding on a claim for deliberate indifference to his
medical needs against Defendant Nurse Julie and also against
Sheriff Wilhelmi as a nominal defendant only for the purpose
of identifying a John Doe Doctor (collectively hereafter
“Defendants”). Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. (Dkt. 18.) This Court adopted the
recommendation and report of the Magistrate Judge that (1)
the motion to dismiss be converted into a motion for summary
judgment because evidence outside of the complaint had been
introduced, and that (2) new briefing be ordered, but the
requirements of Local Rule 56.1 be forgone. (Dkt. 36.)
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. 38), and
Defendants filed a reply (Dkt 39). After reviewing the
briefing, however, this Court determined that given the
particular nature of the exhaustion question in this case,
which appeared to potentially raise disputed issue of facts
that might require a hearing under Pavey v. Conley,
544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008), compliance with Local Rule
56.1 was necessary. (Dkt. 42.) Defendants were ordered to
re-submit their summary judgment motion, along with a Local
Rule 56.1 statement of facts, if they still wished to pursue
their exhaustion defense. (Dkt. 42.) Defendants did so (Dkts.
44, 45, 46, and 49), and Plaintiff responded (Dkt. 53).
Judgment Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), this Court
“shall grant 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.” To
establish that a material fact is undisputed, a party
“must support the assertion by . . . citing to
particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Rule
56(c)(1). “The court need consider only the cited
materials, but it may consider other materials in the
record.” Rule 56(c)(3). Courts must “construe all
facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party.” Van den Bosch v. Raemisch,
658 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2011), citing Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
the party moving for summary judgment demonstrates the
absence of a disputed issue of material fact, “the
burden shifts to the non-moving party to provide evidence of
specific facts creating a genuine dispute.” Carroll
v. Lynch, 698 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2012). The
non-movant must go beyond the allegations of his complaint
and “set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Hannemann v. Southern
Door County School Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir.
2012). A genuine issue of material fact exists only if there
is evidence “to permit a jury to return a verdict
for” the nonmoving party. Egonmwan v. Cook County
Sheriff's Dept., 602 F.3d 845, 849 (7th Cir. 2010);
Carroll, 698 F.3d at 564 (“[m]ere metaphysical
doubt” about material facts is not enough).
Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1
addressing a motion for summary judgment, the Court derives
the background facts from the parties' N.D.Ill. Local
Rule 56.1 Statements and Responses, which assist the Court by
“organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts,
and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove
a disputed fact with admissible evidence.” Bordelon
v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527
(7th Cir. 2000). Under 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 Uniform Servs.,
Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004). The statement
must “consist of short numbered paragraphs, including
within each paragraph specific references to the affidavits,
parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied
upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph.”
Local Rule 56.1(a).
non-moving party must admit or deny each factual statement
offered by the moving party and refer to any material facts
that establish a genuine dispute for trial. Schrott v.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir.
2005); Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B). The non-moving party may
submit his own statements of facts, to which the moving party
must similarly reply. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) & (a)(3).
This Court may consider true a Rule 56.1 factual statement
that is supported by the record and that is not properly
addressed by the opposing party. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C).
The same rule applies for facts submitted by a non-moving
party that are not contested or responded to by the moving
party. Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)(C); see also Raymond v.
Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir. 2006). A
party's pro se status does not excuse him from
complying with these rules. Greer v. Bd. of Edu. of City
of Chicago, 267 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2001); see
also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
case, Defendants filed a memorandum of law (Dkt. 46) and a
Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts
(“SOF”) (Dkt. 45). The SOF consists of numbered
paragraphs that cite to two affidavits from Jail
administrator Lt. Erickson and to the Inmate Handbook, which
although not attached to the SOF, are attached to the summary
judgment motion (Dkt. 44). Each of Defendants' Local Rule
56.1 factual statements cite to parts of these exhibits.
(Dkt. 45.) Defendants also submitted a copy of the Local Rule
56.2 Notice to Pro Se Litigants sent to Plaintiff, which sets
out how Plaintiff was to respond to Defendants' summary
judgment motion and Rule 56.1 Statement. (Dkt. 49.) Plaintiff
submitted a response to Defendant's Local Rule 56.1
statement (“SOF Response”). (Dkt. 53.) In the SOF
Response, Plaintiff separately admitted or denied each of
Defendants' numbered statements of fact, and he supported
his denials with citations to Defendants' exhibits and/or
new exhibits of his own. (Dkt. 53.) Those exhibits are: his
own affidavit, an affidavit from Jail inmate Cory Olalde, and
an affidavit from Plaintiff's mother, April Robnett, and
they are attached to the SOF Response. (Id.)
Plaintiff did not submit an additional Local Rule
56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of facts.
interpreting Plaintiff's filings generously consistent
with his pro se status, the Court will consider the
evidence submitted by Plaintiff, to the extent that he has
identified it specifically in his filings or could properly
testify himself about the matters asserted, along with the
evidence properly submitted by Defendants. Sistrunk v.
Khan, 931 F.Supp.2d 849, 854 (N.D. Ill. 2013);
Fed.R.Evid. 602. Accordingly, the Court will consider the
exhibits that Plaintiff attached and referred to in his SOF
Response, despite that Local Rule 56.1 provides that the
non-movant should submit new evidence such as these materials
as part of a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of additional
facts. (Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's new
evidence nor otherwise file a reply, despite that the
Court's briefing schedule provided a date for doing so
did not submit a separate memorandum of law; however, he did
submit a response memorandum (Dkt. 38) during the first round
of briefing on Defendants' converted motion to dismiss.
That memorandum was signed by Plaintiff and notarized.
(Id.) Because Defendants' newly submitted
summary judgment motion does not raise arguments that differ
from those raised in its converted motion to dismiss, and
given the wide latitude granted to pro se litigants
in general, the Court will consider Plaintiff's arguments
in his previously filed ...