Dobbey v. Randle
| Decision Date | 10 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11 C 3000 |
| Parties | LESTER DOBBEY (#R-16237), Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL RANDLE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Lester Dobbey, an inmate at Illinois's Stateville Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Marvin Reed, an assistant warden, and Leslie Turner, an intelligence officer, violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights by retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to an unnecessary shakedown of his cell and false discipline because he filed grievances and a lawsuit against Defendant Reed. This matter is before the Court for ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, [63], [68], and Plaintiff's motion for an in camera offer of proof [74]. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for an in camera offer of proof [74], denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [68], and grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment [63].
Together with their motion for summary judgment, Defendants filed and served on Plaintiff a "Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment" [66], as requiredby Local Rule 56.2. That notice explained in detail the requirements of the federal and local rules governing summary judgment, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and Local Rule 56.1. Although pro se plaintiffs are entitled to lenient standards, compliance with procedural rules is required. Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104, 1108 (7th Cir. 2004). "Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly held that district judges are entitled to insist on strict compliance with local rules designed to promote the clarity of summary judgment filings." Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880, 886-87 (7th Cir. 2011); Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 401 F.3d 803, 809 (7th Cir. 2005).
Despite the notice given to him concerning the requirements of Local Rule 56.1, many of Plaintiff's statements of fact are deficient with respect to their general citations to the record. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) requires the non-movant's response, in pertinent part, to make "specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." Reference to an entire document does not comply. See Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817-18 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc. of Peoria, 388 F.3d 990, 1006-07 (7th Cir. 2004); Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 583 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ().
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has granted him some leeway and considered the factual assertions that he makes in his summary judgment materials to the extent that he could properly testify about the matters asserted. Among other things, a witness may nottestify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Fed. R. Evid. 602.
Given the considerations stated above, the Court views the following facts as uncontested for purposes of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, except as otherwise stated. The Court takes the facts primarily from Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 statements, [65] and [71], and Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1 statements, [69] and [75], subject to the caveats described above.
Plaintiff is an Illinois state prisoner and was confined at the Stateville Correctional Center at all times relevant to this action. [65] ¶ 1. Defendant Marvin Reed was the facility's Assistant Warden from January 2008 through October 16, 2009. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant Leslie Turner was an Intelligence Officer at Stateville from February 2001 through July 2012. Id. ¶ 3.
In December 2008, Plaintiff filed a mandamus action in the Will County Circuit Court concerning the quality of the medical care that he was receiving at Stateville. [69] Ex. A; [71] ¶ 3. The named defendants were the Illinois Department of Corrections and the Stateville Correctional Center. See [69] Ex. A. Neither Defendant Reed nor Defendant Turner was a named defendant. See id.
In March 2009, Plaintiff filed a supplemental petition to update the allegations in his mandamus action. See id. The supplemental petition included allegations that Plaintiff told Defendant Reed on February 5, 2009 that he was dissatisfied with his medical treatment. See id. In his response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Defendant Reed stated that he did not recall having had any conversations with Plaintiff about medical issues, see [69] Ex. E, ¶¶ 5-9, and reiterated that position in his response to Plaintiff's statement of facts. See [71] ¶ 9.Defendant Reed concedes that he was at Stateville on February 5, 2009, however. See [69] Ex. D; [71] ¶ 8.
On April 23, 2009, Plaintiff failed to appear for a status hearing in the mandamus matter. The circuit court noted on the docket that there had been "[n]o proof of service as to defendant" and cautioned that the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution if Plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendants. [8] Ex. B. The court's docket reflects that summonses were issued to "Warden F. Shaw" and "Director Roger E. Walker" on May 6, 2009. See id. When the matter came up for status again on June 25, 2009, the court noted that Plaintiff again failed to appear and that any service that he had effected had been improper. See id. The court explained that "Service must be obtained by Sheriff and cannot be made thru the mail," and gave Plaintiff "additional time to obtain service." Id. Plaintiff made numerous filings on August 24, 2009, including both supplemental and amended petitions, and filed proof of service and another amended petition on August 25, 2009. See id. On August 27, 2009, however, the circuit court noted for a third time that there was "[n]o proper service in file" and dismissed the matter for want of prosecution. Id.; see also [65-4] at 13-14. There is no evidence that Defendant Reed or Defendant Turner was served; the Circuit Court docket sheet submitted by Plaintiff shows that neither Defendant Reed nor Defendant Turner, nor any unnamed assistant wardens or intelligence officers, was issued a summons.1 Both Defendants testified that they were not served and were unaware of the suit. See [65-2] ¶ 2; [65-3] ¶ 3.
On April 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed an eight-page grievance regarding his medical care. [69] Ex. C. The grievance reiterated Plaintiff's allegations as to the February 2009 conversation with Defendant Reed and also included allegations pertaining to several other correctional officials. See id. Plaintiff does not allege, see [69], and there is no indication on the grievance itself (no signature by Defendant Reed, no received stamp from his office, etc.), that Reed was apprised of the April 1, 2009 grievance. See [69] Ex. C. at 3. Notes on the grievance indicate that it was to be forwarded to Stateville's health care unit and grievance officers, see id. at 1, and a stamp indicates that the Office of Inmate Issues received the grievance on January 7, 2010. See id.
On September 2, 2009, some five months after Plaintiff filed the grievance but only a few days after Plaintiff's mandamus suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, a team of intelligence officers conducted cell searches (or "shakedowns") of several cells in Plaintiff's housing unit. [65] ¶ 8. Defendant Turner has testified2 that the shakedowns were part of an internal affairs investigation unrelated to Plaintiff. See [65-3] ¶ 4. Plaintiff himself acknowledged in his grievance form, see [65-6], and deposition, see [65-4] at 16-17, that at leastone other cell in his cellblock was searched that day, and has maintained from the outset that the officers who performed the shakedown were "IDOC Internal Affair[s]/Intelligence Officers." [8] ¶ 30. Defendant Turner was one of the officers who searched Plaintiff's cell. [65-3] ¶ 3. Defendant Turner testified that prior to the shakedown, he had never been named in or served with any lawsuit filed by Plaintiff and was unaware of any lawsuits that Plaintiff may have filed against him. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant Turner expressly denied that Plaintiff was targeted for retaliation. Id. ¶ 4.
Before searching Plaintiff's cell, Defendant Turner and another officer not named as a defendant, Officer Schwartz, patted Plaintiff and his cellmate down and placed them, handcuffed, in the cellhouse's "bullpen." See [69] Ex. F. During their search of Plaintiff's cell, which Plaintiff testified lasted "for like 2½ hours," [69] Ex. G, the officers discovered a radio with a wire attached to it as an antenna, as well as an altered pair of trimmers that seemed to have been modified to function as a tattoo gun. [65-4] at 6. The radio had Plaintiff's name engraved on it. [65-5]. The officers also observed that Plaintiff had several tattoos on his arm that had not been documented when he was admitted to Stateville in October 2002. [65-4] at 6-7.
Defendant Reed testified that he did not order or participate in the shakedown of Plaintiff's cell. See [65-2] ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiff testified that Defendant Reed walked by the bullpen "after internal affairs searched [his] cell then left." [69] Ex. G; see also [65-4] at 14. Plaintiff "attempted to stop [Defendant Reed] right there and that," but Defendant Reed and his companion, Major Lake, did not stop and continued toward "four gallery" where Plaintiff's cell was located. [6...
To continue reading
Request your trial