Ebrahime v. Dart

• Decision Date: 22 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. 09 C 7825.,09 C 7825.
• Parties: Daroush EBRAHIME, Plaintiff, v. Thomas DART, Sheriff of Cook County, Cook County, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

899 F.Supp.2d 777

Daroush EBRAHIME, Plaintiff,

v.Thomas DART, Sheriff of Cook County, Cook County, et al., Defendants.

No. 09 C 7825.

United States District Court,

N.D. Illinois,

Eastern Division.

Oct. 22, 2012.

Scott David Stein, Bevin B. Seifert, Marvella Donielle McCutcheon, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JEFFREY COLE, United States Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiff has been a pre-trial detainee at Cook County Jail since February 2007. His amended complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charges the Sheriff of Cook County, and several individual defendants with various civil rights violations stemming from an attack by a fellow detainee on October 20, 2009. The defendants have moved for summary judgment on those claims that allege they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff by failing to protect him from the attack and failing to respond quickly enough to put a stop to it.

I.BACKGROUND

A.Summary Judgment Under Local Rule 56.1

As always, the facts underlying this summary judgment proceeding are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 submissions. “For litigants appearing in the Northern District of Illinois, the Rule 56.1 statement is a critical, and required, component of a litigant's response to a motion for summary judgment.” Sojka v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 686 F.3d 394, 398 (7th Cir.2012). 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.

The district court is entitled to enforce strict compliance with its local rules regarding summary judgment motions. Yancick v. Hanna Steel Corp., 653 F.3d 532, 537 (7th Cir.2011); Schmidt v. Eagle Waste & Recycling, Inc., 599 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2010). Responses and facts that are not set out and appropriately supported in an opponent's Rule 56.1 response will not be considered, see Shaffer v. American Medical Ass'n, 662 F.3d 439, 442 (7th Cir.2011) (court need not consider any fact not contained in the parties' Rule 56.1 statements); Bay Area Business Council, 423 F.3d at 633 (court properly disregarded affidavits not referenced in 56.1 submission).

B.Facts

On October 20, 2009, plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee housed in Division 10, Tier 2B of the CCDOC. ( Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (“ Def.St.”), ¶ 15; Plaintiff's Response to Def. St. (“ Pl.Rsp.”), ¶ 15). Officers Jason Bobzin and Thomas Zriny were assigned to the 3 pm–11pm shift on that tier. ( Def.St., ¶ 16; Pl.Rsp., ¶ 16). Sometime between 3 and 4 pm, the plaintiff reported the theft of some commissary item from his table to Officer Zriny. ( Pl.Rsp., ¶ 17; Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) Statement

(“ Pl.St.”), ¶ 9; Response to Pl.St. (“ Def.Rsp ”), ¶ 9). The plaintiff accused another fellow inmate, Corey Young. ( Pl.St. ¶ 9; Def.Rsp., ¶ 9). The items didn't belong to him; they belonged to two of his associates in the CCDOC, Koh and Diaz. ( Pl.St. ¶ 11; Def.Rsp., ¶ 11). The plaintiff was known to congregate with those two on a regular basis, including the day the items were stolen from their table. ( Pl.St. ¶¶ 19–21; Def.Rsp., ¶ 19–21).

Officer Zriny searched Young's cell while all the inmates were at the gym and discovered the stolen items. ( Pl.St. ¶ 12; Def.Rsp., ¶ 12). After learning of the theft, the shift commander—Captain Ortega—instructed Sergeant Helms to have Young transferred to another tier. ( Pl.St. ¶ 13; Def.Rsp., ¶ 13). This was a common response when an inmate had committed theft, and the idea was to avoid any problems like fights between inmates. ( Pl.St. ¶ 14; Def.Rsp., ¶ 14).

Sometime between 5 and a little after 6 pm, after all detainees had returned from the gym, plaintiff was seated at a table in the common area of Tier 2B. ( Def.St., ¶ 18; Pl.Rsp., ¶¶ 17–18). By that time, Young knew that he had been fingered by an inmate for stealing and that he was going to be punished by being sent to another tier. ( Pl.St. ¶ 28; Def.Rsp., ¶ 28). Officer Zriny told Young to go to his cell to collect his belongings. ( Pl.St. ¶ 16; Def.Rsp., ¶ 16). The plaintiff and Officer Zriny testified that Officer Zriny was walking behind Young through the common area when Young suddenly lunged and attacked the plaintiff. (Ebrahime Dep., at 39–40; Zriny Dep., at 71–73); Officer Bobzin testified that he and Officer Zriny and were still in the interlock ¹ and Young was unescorted when he attacked Ebrahime. (Bobzin Dep., at 107). Officer Zriny added that he was about five feet behind Young and Young was not restrained in any fashion as he walked through the common area. ( Pl.St. ¶ 36; Def.Rsp., ¶ 36).

The plaintiff testified that Young hit him in his head, face, neck, and eyes before he fell down. (Ebrahime Dep., at 41). He thought Young may have hit him more than five times, but he didn't count the blows and he didn't know how many times Young hit him before he fell to the floor. (Ebrahime Dep., at 41, 44). After he was on the ground, he didn't remember much because it was as if he “went into a coma somehow.” (Ebrahime Dep., at 43). He could not say how long the beating lasted. (Ebrahime Dep., at 44; see Pl.St., ¶¶ 37–38; Def.Rsp., ¶¶ 37–38). The defendants also do not say how long the attack lasted before correction officers stepped in. They simply assert that “[s]everal officers stepped in to stop the attack, including [Officer] Zriny, and a call was immediately made for more officers to assist. ( Def.St., ¶ 33; Pl.Rsp., ¶ 33). Those additional officers—ten to fifteen in number—arrived a minute or two later. ( Def.St., ¶ 33; Pl.Rsp., ¶ 33).

Prior to this incident, Officer Zriny knew Young to be a compliant inmate, and had no knowledge of any violent or aggressive tendencies by Young. ( Def.St., ¶ 22; Pl.Rsp., ¶ 22). Plaintiff testified that he had known Young approximately 10 days at that time, and prior to this incident he did not have any problems with Young. ( Def.St., ¶ 23; Pl.Rsp., ¶ 23). Young had never threatened the plaintiff with physical violence prior to the attack. ( Def.St., ¶ 24; Pl.Rsp., ¶ 24). Plaintiff testified that he did not know Young would attack him. It happened “all of the sudden” and it was “shocking for him.” ( Def.St., ¶¶ 27–29; Pl.Rsp., ¶¶ 27–29). Plaintiff, however, disputesthat Officers Zriny and Bobzin didn't know Young would attack him because he had been the one that accused Young of stealing.

The CCDOC has an established grievance procedure for detainees to follow to redress their complaints short of federal litigation. Part of the CCDOC administrative grievance procedure includes an appeal process where detainees are required to appeal a response to their grievance within 14 days of their receipt of the grievance response. According to the defendants, a thorough review of the CCDOC grievance records reveals that plaintiff submitted one grievance between October 20, 2009, and December 16, 2009. That grievance was dated November 16, 2009, was received by CCDOC staff on December 3rd, and was assigned a control # 2009x2509. Plaintiff received a written response on December 8—he signed a receipt for it—which informed him that his matter was being referred to the division physician. Immediately below the receipt signature line it says: Request for Appeal APPEALS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE THE DETAINEE RECEIVED THE RESPONSE. ( Def.St., ¶¶ 37–46; Pl.Rsp., ¶¶ 37–46). The plaintiff concedes that he did not appeal the response to this grievance. ( Def.St., ¶ 47; Pl.Rsp., ¶ 47). But he contends that grievance # 2009x2509 doesn't deal with the attack, but with medical treatment for back pain he suffered as a result of the attack. ( Pl.St., ¶ 6; Def.Rsp., ¶ 6). The plaintiff also claims that he filed two other grievances that did pertain to the attack, the first on October 21, 2009, and the second on October 23, 2009. He says he submitted them to a social worker—which is proper procedure—but didn't remember which one. He has never received a response to either of these grievances. The defendant disputes that the plaintiff ever properly filed the two grievances because at his deposition, the plaintiff could not recall which social worker he gave them to. ( Pl.St., ¶¶ 3–8; Pl.Exs. 2, 3; Def.Rsp., ¶¶ 3–8).

II.ANALYSIS

A.Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate only when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). On summary judgment, a court may not weigh the evidence or decide which inferences should be drawn from the facts. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Still, “a factual dispute is ‘genuine’ only if a reasonable jury could find for either party.” Rosario v. Brawn, 670 F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir.2012) (citation omitted). To survive...