Grooms v. Caldwell, Civ. No. S90-211

CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
Writing for the CourtALLEN SHARP
Citation806 F. Supp. 807
PartiesRobert Morgan GROOMS, Plaintiff, v. J. CALDWELL, Asst. Investigator, ISP; Carl Swiehart, Investigator, ISP; Barry Nothstine, Admin. Asst., ISP; and Dick Clark, Superintendent, ISP, Defendants.
Docket NumberCiv. No. S90-211,S90-235.
Decision Date16 December 1991

806 F. Supp. 807

Robert Morgan GROOMS, Plaintiff,
v.
J. CALDWELL, Asst. Investigator, ISP; Carl Swiehart, Investigator, ISP; Barry Nothstine, Admin.
Asst., ISP; and Dick Clark, Superintendent, ISP, Defendants.

Civ. Nos. S90-211, S90-235.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

December 16, 1991.


806 F. Supp. 808

Grooms, pro se.

Thomas D. Quigley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLEN SHARP, Chief Judge.

These cases are brought by Robert Morgan Grooms, pro se, an inmate at the Indiana State Prison.1 This court takes note of the proceedings that were had telephonically but on the record on September 3, 1991.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on November 22, 1991, and complied with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir.1982). The plaintiff's response to the aforesaid motion for summary judgment was filed on December 6, 1991 and has been carefully examined by this court. Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; accord Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wausau Paper Mills Co., 818 F.2d 591, 593 (7th Cir.1987). A material question of fact is a question which will be outcome-determinative of an issue in that case. Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Big O Warehouse, 741 F.2d 160, 163 (7th Cir. 1984).

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States took the opportunity to address Rule 56. In two cases decided on the same day, the Court expanded the scope of the application of Rule 56. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Celotex addressed the initial burdens of the parties under Rule 56, and Anderson addressed the standards under which the record is to be analyzed within the structure of Rule 56.

After Celotex, it is clear that a non-moving party may not rest on its pleadings to avoid summary judgment. 477 U.S. at 325-26, 106 S.Ct. at 2553-54. See also Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 826 F.2d 33 (D.C.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1066, 108 S.Ct. 1028, 98 L.Ed.2d 992 (1988). The initial burden is on the moving party to demonstrate "`with or without supporting affidavits'" the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and that judgment as a matter of law should be granted in the moving party's favor. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553 (quoting Rule 56). Once the moving party has met the initial burden, the opposing party must "go beyond the pleadings" and "designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine material issue for trial.'" Id. Furthermore, in Anderson, the Court held that what facts are material in a specific case shall be determined by the substantive law controlling that case or issue. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. In addition, the court went on to interpret Rule 56 as requiring that the courts analyze summary judgment motions utilizing the standard of proof relevant to that case or issue. Id. at 252-55, 106 S.Ct. at 2512-14. For recent academic insight into Celotex and Anderson, see Childress, A New Era for Summary Judgments: Recent Shifts at the Supreme Court, 116 F.R.D. 183, 194 (1987), where the author states:

The recent Supreme Court cases likely require that summary judgment be more readily granted.... This emerging trend signals a new era for summary judgment, one in which the old presumptions are giving way to a policy of balancing and efficiency, and the mechanism is more appropriate to double as a sufficiency motion — allowing some sort of trial itself on the paper record.
806 F. Supp. 809
For the judicial epilogue of Celotex, see Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 826 F.2d at 33. A recent object lesson applying these ideas is found in Puckett v. Soo Line Railroad Co., 897 F.2d 1423 (7th Cir.1990), Jamison-Bey v. Thieret, 867 F.2d 1046 (7th Cir.1989), and Richardson v. Penfold, 839 F.2d 392 (7th Cir.1988). For an exact and recent analysis on this subject, see Friedenthal, Cases on Summary Judgment: Has There Been a Material Change in Standards? 63 Notre Dame L.Rev. 770 (1988).

In their official capacities, each of the state defendants are entitled to immunity for claims for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Eleventh Amendment states as follows:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

See Kashani v. Purdue University, 813 F.2d 843 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 846, 108 S.Ct. 141, 98 L.Ed.2d 97 (1987); Owen v. Lash, 682 F.2d 648 (7th Cir.1982); Sheets v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 656 F.Supp. 733 (S.D.Ind.1986). For recent authority consistent with Kashani, 813 F.2d at 843, see Shelton v. Trustees of Indiana University, 891 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1989). See also Kroll v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 934 F.2d 904 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 377, 116 L.Ed.2d 329 (1991); Cosby v. Jackson, 741 F.Supp. 740 (N.D.Ill.1990), aff'd, 936 F.2d 940 (7th Cir.1991) and Rodenbeck v. Indiana, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Div., 742 F.Supp. 1442 (N.D.Ind.1990). Any and all damage claims against the defendants in their official capacities are now DISMISSED under the mandates of the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution.

From its inception, this case has narrowed considerably. It is the court's intent to deal with the present narrowed version. This court has also made a very careful examination of the record and the in camera submissions that are at issue here. This court is also sensitive to the basic values that inhere in Chief Justice Hughes' great opinion in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931). In that seminal case, the great Chief Justice sowed the seeds with reference to prior restraints on free speech. It must be said that some of those values prevail in a more limited fashion in the context of a maximum security prison such as the Indiana State Prison.

Early on in these cases, it was at least inferred, if not categorically stated by the plaintiff, that one of the persons portrayed in the photographs of people in the garb of the Ku Klux Klan (hereafter "KKK") was a relative, possibly a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Bromenn Healthcare v. NORTHWESTERN NAT. LIFE INS., No. 92-1033.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • November 13, 1992
    ...and Lister (removal jurisdiction proper because participant's state claims are cognizable under ERISA's civil forfeiture provisions). 806 F. Supp. 807 As stated in the prologue to this discussion, the primary purpose of ERISA is to protect the interests of participants and beneficiaries of ......
1 cases
  • Bromenn Healthcare v. NORTHWESTERN NAT. LIFE INS., No. 92-1033.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • November 13, 1992
    ...and Lister (removal jurisdiction proper because participant's state claims are cognizable under ERISA's civil forfeiture provisions). 806 F. Supp. 807 As stated in the prologue to this discussion, the primary purpose of ERISA is to protect the interests of participants and beneficiaries of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT