789 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2015), 13-3307, Friend v. Valley View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 365U
|Citation:||789 F.3d 707|
|Opinion Judge:||Bauer, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||DEVON FRIEND f/k/a DEVON HODGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALLEY VIEW COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 365U, et al., Defendants-Appellees|
|Attorney:||For DEVON FRIEND, Plaintiff - Appellant: Jason R. Craddock, Sr., Attorney, Chicago, IL. For VALLEY VIEW COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 365-U; WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, JAMES BOUDORIS, JEFFREY BAMBULE, ROBERT BROST, Defendants - Appellees: Todd K. Hayden, Attorney, Susan W. Glover, Attorney, ROBB...|
|Judge Panel:||Before BAUER, FLAUM, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 12, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Plaintiff, once a standout high school basketball player, sued 942 U.S.C. 1983) Valley View Community School District, and the Illinois High School Association, raising claims of First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, substantive due process, unconstitutional policy, section 1983 conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, and indemnification under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. He... (see full summary)
Submitted January 21, 2015.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 11 C 8418 -- Ronald A. Guzmá n, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, Devon Friend, formerly known as Devon Hodges, once a standout Illinois high school basketball player, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Valley View Community School District 365U and various administrators, teachers, and coaches employed by the School District,1 as well as the Illinois High School Association (" IHSA" ) and its Executive Director Martin Hickman. Friend's third amended complaint raised six claims: First Amendment retaliation, equal protection (class of one), substantive due process, unconstitutional policy or custom ( Monell ), § 1983 conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights, and indemnification under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/9-102.
At the close of discovery, both the School District and IHSA defendants moved for summary judgment. In his summary judgment order, the district court judge determined that Friend failed to comply with Northern District of Illinois Rule 56.1. Because of this failure, the court deemed admitted all of the defendants' properly supported facts and disregarded Friend's additional facts that lacked evidentiary support. The district court judge then entered summary judgment in favor of both the School District and IHSA defendants, disposing of all of Friend's claims.
Friend challenges this decision on appeal, and he challenges the district court judge's determination that he failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1. For the following reasons, we affirm.
At the outset, we note that a lengthy recitation of the facts is not necessary to our resolution of Friend's appeal. For the record, in both the district court and on appeal, makes our discussion of the merits of the district court judge's summary judgment decision of necessity quite limited. That being said, we dive right into Friend's procedural challenge to the district court's enforcement of Rule 56.1.
I. The District Court's Rule 56.1 Determination
Northern District of Illinois Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires a party moving for summary judgment to include with that motion " 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[.]" This statement must be organized by numbered paragraphs and refer to the " affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials" that substantiate the asserted facts. Id. Both the School District and IHSA defendants, as movants for summary judgment, complied with Rule 56.1. Friend, the party opposing summary judgment, was required to respond to each...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP