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.

Wilsonn v. Rensing

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 8, 2018

MICHAEL S. WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA RENSING, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Patricia Rensing's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 53 & 54). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         Plaintiff Michael Wilson (“Wilson”) brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on events that occurred while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. The original Complaint included fifteen separate counts against twenty-seven different defendants (Doc. 10). The Court conducted a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Following that review, the only claim that remains in this case[1] is Wilson's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Patricia Rensing for writing a disciplinary ticket in response to his verbal complaint that she had violated a prison rule (Doc. 10, p. 9).

         In 2012, Wilson was an inmate at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. On or around November 14, 2012, Wilson attempted to get a replacement razor from Rensing (Doc. 54-1, p. 4), who was the Supply Supervisor at Pinckneyville (Doc. 54, p. 2). The parties disagree about whether Wilson was authorized to get the razor, as well as whether he was aggressive or used profanity during the incident (Doc. 54, p. 6; Doc. 58, p. 6). It is undisputed, however, that when Rensing refused to give him a replacement razor, Wilson took it upon himself to verbally inform her she was violating prison policy (Doc. 54, p. 6). It is also undisputed that Rensing issued Wilson a disciplinary ticket for unauthorized movement and insolence (Doc. 54, p. 6). Wilson spent thirty days in segregation, but admits that Rensing was not involved in any of the disciplinary proceedings or disciplinary recommendations resulting from the ticket she wrote (Doc. 54-1, p. 4; Doc. 58, p. 7).

         Legal Standard

         Summary judgment is proper only if the moving party can demonstrate there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact must be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 160 (1970); Lawrence v. Kenosha Cnty., 391 F.3d 837, 841 (7th Cir. 2004).

         The Seventh Circuit has stated that summary judgment is “the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events.” Steen v. Myers, 486 F.3d 1017, 1022 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2005)).

         While the burden is on the moving party to show entitlement to summary judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)-(e), requires the non-moving party to properly address another party's assertion of fact.

         A party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support that assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or present of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B)

         If a party fails to address any such assertion, the Court may consider the facts undisputed and can grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials-including the facts considered ...


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.