Hunt v. Dart

• Decision Date: 06 December 2010
• Docket Number: No. 07 C 6003.,07 C 6003.
• Parties: Thomas HUNT, deceased, by and through his Supervised Administrator, Tracy CHIOVARI, Plaintiff,v.Thomas DART, as Sheriff of Cook County, and Cook County, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

754 F.Supp.2d 962

Thomas HUNT, deceased, by and through his Supervised Administrator, Tracy CHIOVARI, Plaintiff,

v.Thomas DART, as Sheriff of Cook County, and Cook County, Defendants.

No. 07 C 6003.

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

Dec. 6, 2010.

Martin A. Dolan, Karen Munoz, Dolan Law Offices P.C., Laurie A. Niego, Steven K. Jambois, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.Daniel Francis Gallagher, Ari Jonathan Scharg, Dominick L. Lanzito, Lawrence S. Kowalczyk, Terrence Franklin Guolee, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., Patrick Stephen Smith, Cook County States Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JEFFREY COLE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff's second amended complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charges the Sheriff of Cook County with civil rights violations that allegedly led to the death of Thomas Hunt while he was in custody at the Cook County Jail. Count II seeks to hold the Sheriff liable under Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), alleging that the Sheriff is responsible for policies authorizing excessive force and/or deliberate indifference at the jail. Count III is a state law, wrongful death claim against the Sheriff. The Sheriff has filed a motion for summary judgment on both counts.

I.BACKGROUND

A.Local Rule 56.1 Requirements

As always, the facts underlying this summary judgment proceeding are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 submissions. Local Rule 56.1 requires a party seeking summary judgment to include with its motion “a statement of material facts as to which the ... party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the ... party to a judgment as a matter of law.” Local Rule 56.1(a)(3); Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643 (7th Cir.2008). Each paragraph must refer to the “affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials” that substantiate the asserted facts. Local Rule 56.1(a)(3); F.T.C. v. Bay Area Business Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627, 633 (7th Cir.2005) The party opposing summary judgment must then respond to the movant's statement of proposed material facts; that response must contain both “a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement,” Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B), and a separate statement “consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment,” Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C); Ciomber, 527 F.3d at 643. Again, each response, and each asserted fact, must be supported with a reference to the record. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B); Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir.2009); Bay Area Business Council, Inc., 423 F.3d at 633.

If the moving party fails to comply with the rule, the motion can be denied without further consideration. Local Rule 56.1(a)(3); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 682 n. 1 (7th Cir.2003). If the responding parting fails to comply, its additional facts may be ignored, and the properly supported facts asserted in the moving party's submission are deemed admitted. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C); Montano v. City of Chicago, 535 F.3d 558, 569 (7th Cir.2008); Cracco, 559 F.3d at 632; Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir.2006). District courts are “ ‘entitled to expect strict compliance’ ” with Rule 56.1 and do not abuse their discretion when they opt to disregard facts presented in a manner that does follow the rule's requirements. Cracco, 559 F.3d at 632; Ciomber, 527 F.3d at 643; Ammons v. Aramark Unif. Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir.2004). The court is not required to hunt for evidence in the record that supports a party's case if a party fails to point it out; that is the responsibility of counsel. See Bay Area Business Council, 423 F.3d at 633 (court properly disregarded affidavits not referenced in 56.1 submission).

B.Factual Background

On April 27, 2006, Mr. Hunt got drunk and fell while staying at a motel in Worth, Illinois. ( Sheriff's Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts (“Shf. St.”), ¶ 57–58; Plaintiff's Response (“Pl. Rsp.”), ¶ 57–58). He sustained extremely serious injuries, including traumatic brain injury, skull fracture, facial fracture, aphasia, and impaired cognition. (Shf. St. ¶ 59; Pl. Rsp. ¶ 59). He spent two weeks in the rehabilitation unit at Advocate Christ Medical Center and was discharged May 11th. (Sheriff's Ex. 25).¹ Following his release from the hospital, he suffered intermittent fainting spells. (Shf. St. ¶ 61; Pl. Rsp. ¶ 61).

Fast forward about five months to October 22, 2006. Officer James Kaczmark of the Worth, Illinois, police department responded to a 911 call regarding a disturbance at what he described as a “flop house.” (Sheriff's Ex. 2, Kaczmark Dep., at 6, 21). At the scene, there was one individual standing outside the building, who identified himself as Michael Kuebler. When Officer Kaczmark ran the name through the system, the closest name that came up was a Paul Kuebler, whose description fit the man at the scene and who was wanted by the Palos Park police department and the Cook County Sheriff's police. (Sheriff's Ex. 2, Kaczmark Dep., at 14). Officer Kaczmark arrested him. During a cursory search, he found an ID indicating Kuebler was actually Thomas Hunt. (Sheriff's Ex. 2, Kaczmark Dep., at 14). Officer Kaczmark arrested him for obstruction because he had falsely identified himself. (Shf. St. ¶ 4; Pl. Rsp. ¶ 4).

Mr. Hunt was transported to the Worth police station, where he was kept overnight. (Shf. St. ¶ 5; Pl. Rsp. ¶ 5). On October 23, 2006, Worth Police Officer, Anthony Ritz, transported Mr. Hunt, alone, to Cook County Circuit Court in Bridgeview, Illinois for his bond hearing. (Shf. St. ¶¶ 6–7; Pl. Rsp. ¶¶ 6–7). Following the hearing, Cook County Corrections officers took him to the Cook County Jail. (Shf. St. ¶ 8; Pl. Rsp. ¶ 8). Once there, Mr. Hunt was taken to an intake area and placed in a “bull pen” prior to being classified, processed, and having his personal property inventoried. (Shf. St. ¶¶ 9–10; Pl. Rsp. ¶¶ 9–10). Detainees at the jail are also examined by Cermak Health Services Medical Technicians, who prepare intake sheets reflecting their medications. (Shf. St. ¶¶ 14–15; Pl. Rsp. ¶¶ 14–15). This is usually done after property inventory, but the order of processing is inconsistent. (Sheriff's Ex. 4, Maxwell Dep., at 23, 40–41, Ex. 7, Gatlin Dep., at 16). Physicians visit the facility at regularly scheduled times and attend to any detainees in the bullpen who need to see a doctor. (Sheriff's Ex. 5, Colon Dep., at 20–21). On rare occasions, a detainee might request medical attention and a physician would be called. (Sheriff's Ex. 5, Colon Dep., at 49–50).

By all accounts, Mr. Hunt was in the line to the property cage for property inventory when he fell to the floor.² But there is no testimony regarding what preceded or precipitated his fall. Michelle Maxwell, who was in the property cage at the time, testified:

When it happened, I was not facing the detainee. I was retrieving property. And I heard a loud thud. It almost sounded like a coconut hitting the ground. It was extremely loud. And it drew my attention.

And I turned around, at which point I noticed the detainee was not in line. And there was a space where he had been. And I stepped forward in the property cage and looked down and saw him on the ground.

(Sheriff's Ex. 4, Maxwell Dep., at 56). Ms. Maxwell said blood was coming from Mr. Hunt's head, and that he was shaking or convulsing as he was lying on the floor. (Sheriff's Ex. 4, Maxwell Dep., at 55, 59). She shouted for a medical technician and saw Lena Colon responding. (Sheriff's Ex. 4, Maxwell Dep., at 61). Ms. Maxwell left the property cage and cleared the area around Mr. Hunt to allow the medical technicians room to work. (Sheriff's Ex. 4, Maxwell Dep., at 63).

Ms. Colon, a medical technician on duty at the time, testified that she “remember[ed] hearing a bang on the floor on the side of me and I jumped up and saw blood coming out of [Mr. Hunt's] head and he was having a seizure.” (Sheriff's Ex. 5, Colon Dep., at 26). He fell near the line at the property cage. (Sheriff's Ex. 5, Colon Dep., at 29). There is no dispute that she responded immediately to render medical assistance. (Shf. St. ¶ 25; Pl. Rsp. ¶ 25). Mr. Hunt was lying on his back, so she turned him on his side to keep his airway clear. (Sheriff's Ex. 5, Colon Dep., at 31, 35). Her co-workers followed with equipment. They bandaged his head, fitted him with a cervical collar, secured him to a backboard, and placed him on a stretcher. (Shf. St., ¶ 27; Sheriff's Ex. 5, Colon Dep., at 35, 38–40. Pl. Rsp., ¶ 27; Plaintiff's Ex. 19, Horner Dep., at 9–10). No physician was called, but paramedics were contacted with a report of a 65–year–old man experiencing a seizure; Mr. Hunt was put into an ambulance. (Sheriff's Ex. 5, Colon Dep., at 41; Plaintiff's Ex. 9).

Michael Horner, one of the paramedics from Cermak Health Services who responded to the call from the jail, noted that when they arrived to transport Mr. Hunt to the hospital, the on-scene medical technicians “already had [Mr. Hunt] perfectly packaged for [them] just to switch to [their] stretcher and get out.” (Pl. Rsp., ¶ 27; Plaintiff's Ex. 19, Horner Dep., at 9). At that time, Mr. Horner said he didn't recall noticing any seizure activity; but he also said he had no recollection of how Mr. Hunt looked or how he was acting. ( Plaintiff's Additional Facts (“Pl. St.”), ¶ 22; Plaintiff's Ex. 19, Horner Dep., at 13–14). The other responding paramedic, Anthony Loveless, stated that he did not see any seizure activity until Mr. Hunt got to the hospital. (Pl. St. ¶ 22; Plaintiff's Ex., Loveless Dep., at 30–31). That is the only evidence concerning what happened at the time Mr. Hunt fell. Neither party has produced any witnesses who actually saw what happened to cause Mr. Hunt to fall.

Ms....