Hall v. Nicholson

Citation584 F.Supp.3d 589
Decision Date10 February 2022
Docket NumberCase No. 20 C 1719
Parties Timothy HALL (K-57675), Plaintiff, v. Warden NICHOLSON, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

584 F.Supp.3d 589

Timothy HALL (K-57675), Plaintiff,
v.
Warden NICHOLSON, Defendants.

Case No. 20 C 1719

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.

Signed February 10, 2022


584 F.Supp.3d 590

Dina Marie Hayes, Jeffrey Messina, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Timothy Hall, Pinckneyville, IL, Pro Se.

Kristin K. Lindemann, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Warden Nicholson.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Timothy Hall ("Plaintiff"), an Illinois prisoner, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the conditions under which he was imprisoned at Stateville Correctional Center. By order dated May 1, 2020, the Court allowed Plaintiff's amended complaint to proceed against Stateville Warden Nicholson ("Defendant") because the amended complaint alleged potentially systemic problems at the prison. Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is denied.

I. Background

A. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1

Local Rule 56.1 governs the procedures for filing and responding to motions for summary judgment in this Court. Rule 56.1 requires the party moving for summary judgment to provide a statement of material facts and a supporting memorandum of law. LR 56.1(a)(1), (2) (N.D. Ill.) (amd. Feb. 18, 2021). The statement of material facts "must consist of concise numbered paragraphs[,]" and "[e]ach asserted fact must be supported by citation to the specific evidentiary material, including the specific page number, that supports it." LR 56.1(d)(1), (2). When addressing facts in its memorandum of law, the moving party "must cite directly to specific paragraphs in the LR 56.1 statements or responses." LR 56.1(g).

The party opposing summary judgment must submit a supporting memorandum of law and a response to the moving party's statement of facts. LR 56.1(b)(1), (2). A fact may be admitted, disputed, or admitted in part and disputed in part. LR 56.1(e)(2). To dispute an asserted fact, the opposing party "must cite specific evidentiary material that controverts the fact" and explain "how the cited material controverts the asserted fact." LR 56.1(e)(3). "[M]ere disagreement with the movant's asserted facts is inadequate[.]" Smith v. Lamz , 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). "Asserted facts may be deemed admitted if not controverted with specific citations to evidentiary material." LR 56.1(e)(3).

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 61, a memorandum in support, Dkt. 63 ("DMEM"), and a statement of facts, Dkt. 62 ("DSOF"). Each asserted

584 F.Supp.3d 591

material fact is supported by citations to evidentiary material. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se , Defendant also served on Plaintiff a Local Rule 56.2 Notice that explained the requirements of Local Rule 56.1. Dkt. 64. Plaintiff filed a response that consists of both a recitation of facts and legal arguments, Dkt. 67 ("PRESP").

Plaintiff did not directly respond to Defendant's statement of facts, so as permitted by Local Rule 56.1(e)(3), the Court will consider facts therein admitted if they are not "controverted with specific citations to evidentiary material." Notwithstanding any admissions, however, the Court has interpreted Plaintiff's responsive filing generously, consistent with his pro se status, and will consider his recitation of facts to the extent that he has either pointed to evidence in the record or could properly testify himself about the matters asserted. See James v. Hale , 959 F.3d 307, 315 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) ); Sistrunk v. Khan , 931 F. Supp. 2d 849, 854 (N.D. Ill. 2013) ; Fed. R. Evid. 602. Moreover, application of Local Rule 56.1 here aside, Defendant relies entirely upon Plaintiff's own deposition testimony and grievances as evidence of the prison's conditions – Defendant has submitted no additional evidence on that issue – and thus the factual record as to prison conditions consists of Plaintiff's own account and is undisputed in any event. See Bentz v. Hardy , No. 15-1344, 638 Fed. App'x 535, 536 (7th Cir. Apr. 8, 2016) (finding that, even where plaintiff failed to respond properly to statement of uncontested facts, "[t]hat...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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