Daniel v. Cook Cnty.
| Decision Date | 14 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | 12 C 9049 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | ALEX DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. COOK COUNTY, SHERIFF TOM DART, MAIL SUPERVISOR SANTIAGO, MAIL SUPERVISOR J. FINDLEY, Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Alex Daniel, a pretrial detainee at the Cook County Jail, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Cook County, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, and Santiago1 and Jamie Findley, both of whom supervise the Cook County Jail mailroom. Plaintiff alleges that from January 2012 to the time he filed this federal lawsuit, jail employees have interfered with his incoming and outgoing mail in violation of the First Amendment. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants' motion.
Local Rule 56.1 governs the procedures for filing and responding to motions for summary judgment in this Court. Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue" for trial. Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004). Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) provides that "[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will bedeemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party." Id. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) permits the party opposing summary judgment to submit "a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment."
To defeat summary judgment, the opposing party "must file a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement" of fact. Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the case of any disagreement, the opposing party must reference affidavits, parts of the record, and other materials that support his stance. Id. "[M]ere disagreement with the movant's asserted facts is inadequate if made without reference to specific supporting material." Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). If the opposing party's response provides only extraneous or argumentative information, the response will not constitute a proper denial of the fact, and the fact will be admitted. See Graziano v. Vill. of Oak Park, 401 F. Supp. 2d 918, 936 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Legal conclusions or otherwise unsupported statements, including those that rely upon inadmissible hearsay, will be disregarded. See Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp., 113 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 1997).
If the opposing party fails to comply with Rule 56.1, "its additional facts may be ignored, and the properly supported facts asserted in the moving party's submissions are deemed admitted." Gbur v. City of Harvey, 835 F. Supp. 2d 600, 606-07 (N.D. Ill. 2011). Substantial compliance is not enough; parties must strictly comply with the rule. See id.; Ammons, 368 F.3d at 817. Furthermore, the requirements of Local Rule 56.1 apply equally to pro se plaintiffs. See Greer v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 267 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2001); Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006) ().
Consistent with the Local Rules, Defendants filed a statement of uncontested material facts along with their motion for summary judgment. See Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. Each relevant substantive assertion of fact in Defendants' Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement is supported by evidentiary material in the record. Also consistent with the Local Rules, Defendants filed and served on Plaintiff a Local Rule 56.2 Notice, which explained in detail the requirements of Local Rule 56.1.
In response, Plaintiff filed more than 300 pages of documents. Plaintiff's response consists of a memorandum of law and a statement of facts, see Pl.'s Summ. J., Ex. H, List of Facts ("Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt."). Plaintiff also filed more than 270 pages of exhibits, including case law and grievances. Plaintiff did not file a statement of additional facts as permitted by Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C).
With the above standards in mind, the Court will limit its analysis of the facts to evidence that is properly identified and supported in the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements. See Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000), see also Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487, 490 (7th Cir. 2007) ().
Alex Daniel is an inmate at Cook County Jail; he has been incarcerated at the jail since November 2007.2 Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff contends that he has experienced problems with mail service at the jail since approximately December 2011 or January 2012. See,e.g., id. ¶¶ 32-50. Plaintiff alleges, for example, that he has experienced the mishandling of outgoing personal correspondence, delays in receiving incoming personal and legal mail, lost packages and letters that allegedly were sent to him by family members, the opening of legal mail outside of his presence, and delays in receiving legal mail. Id.
The mailroom at Cook County Jail operates five days a week and oversees all incoming and outgoing mail at the jail. Id. ¶ 13. On average, the mailroom receives between 5,000 to 7,000 pieces of incoming mail each day. Id. ¶ 18. The mailroom staffs twelve employees, who search, distribute, log, and track mail for over 9,000 inmates, as well as for the jail's administrators and staff. Id. ¶ 16.
Incoming mail is brought into the mailroom by mailroom employees who pick it up from the local post office. Id. ¶ 17. Once at the facility, all incoming mail is sniff-searched by dogs. All non-privileged incoming mail is then searched by hand for any contraband. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. All letters and packages are also examined for contraband items that can be used as or fashioned into weapons. Id. ¶ 20. In conducting this search, the mailroom staff comb through the pages of the books, magazines, and letters that is received via post in order to physically and visually inspect them for hidden contraband. Id. ¶¶ 21-22.
After incoming mail has been checked for contraband, each article of mail is sorted by division and tier. Id. ¶ 23. Regular mail is dropped off at each division. Id. Packages, legal mail, and money orders are recorded by the staff in the various divisions. Id. Divisional staff also must sign for any legal mail. Id.
Legal mail generally is opened by the inmate in the presence of divisional staff. Id. ¶ 24. Divisional staff members inspect legal mail for contraband, taking care not to read the contents ofthe communications or otherwise infringe the attorney-client privilege. Id. Mailroom staff is not involved in the opening of legal mail. Id.
When inmates have mail to send out, they give outgoing mail to officers in the tiers; the officers place the mail in bins; and the bins are picked up by mailroom staff. Id. ¶ 25. Outgoing mail must have the correct stamp and postage. Id. If outgoing mail does not contain the correct postage, the article is returned to the inmate with an explanation of the problem. Id. Outgoing mail is to be given to tier officers unsealed, but almost all outgoing mail received from detainees is sealed when received by mailroom staff. Id. ¶ 26.
Plaintiff's allegations concern both his personal and his legal mail. As to his personal mail, Plaintiff contends that his personal mail was handled in a manner that violated his constitutional rights in eight separate instances. Id. ¶¶ 32-44. The occurrence that seems to be the catalyst for this lawsuit concerns letters Plaintiff wrote to his ex-wife and fiancée that Plaintiff believes were switched by mailroom staff. Id. ¶¶ 27-37. According to Plaintiff, on December 16 or December 17, 2011, he wrote separate letters to his ex-wife and his fiancée. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff sealed the letters, affixed stamps to the letters, and handed the sealed letters to a correctional officer for mailing. Id. ¶ 33. About one month later, Plaintiff's mother told him that the letters to his ex-wife and fiancée had been switched; that is, Plaintiff's ex-wife received the letter meant for Plaintiff's fiancée, and vice versa. Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiff's ex-wife and fiancée confirmed this, id. ¶ 36, and Plaintiff's ex-wife allegedly spoke to Defendant Findley about the incident. Id. Plaintiff, of course, has no idea how the letters to his ex-wife and fiancée were switched. Id. ¶¶ 34, 37.
Plaintiff also complains that he failed to receive four packages that were sent to him by family members between February 2012 and sometime after August 2013. According to Plaintiff, his brother send him a package containing pictures and obituary clippings in January or February 2012, but Plaintiff never received it. Id. ¶ 38. In August 2013, his mother sent him two packages containing puzzle books, magazines, and paper, but this too was not received.3 Finally, sometime after August 2013, Plaintiff's friend, Felicia Barnette, sent him a package containing a card and some magazines; this too was not received. Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 43.
Plaintiff also testified that, on two occasions in February 2012, he mailed two letters without proper postage, but rather than being returned to him, they were either destroyed or not returned. He also claims that, in January 2014, Plaintiff received a Christmas card approximately thirty days after the date it was postmarked. Id. ¶¶ 40-42, 44.
To continue reading
Request your trial