Moore v. Pipefitters Ass'n Local Union 597, U.A.
| Decision Date | 20 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 10 C 7376,10 C 7376 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | ANTHONY MOORE, Plaintiff, v. PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL UNION 597, U.A., Defendant. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Anthony Moore is an African-American member of Pipefitters Association Local Union 597 ("Local 597"). While his battle with his Union goes back a decade when he first filed charges with the EEOC, his Complaint in this case charges Local 597 with race discrimination, retaliation, and failure to represent him. Mr. Moore claims Local 597 failed to recall and/or refer him for jobs, first through its hiring hall and later through its referral hall, because of his race and/or because he has filed claims against Local 597, and has spoken out against it. According to Mr. Moore, Local 597 referred non-African-American members who were lower on Local 597's out-of-work list than he. Mr. Moore also blames Local 597 for the fact that no signatory contractor has hired him directly. He brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981 and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2; 2000e(3).
On February 14th, defendant filed its motion for summary judgment. [Dkt. ##171-173]. Defendant also filed its motion to bar plaintiff's expert. [Dkt. ##168-170]. That motion was noticed for February 20, 2014. [Dkt. #170]. Mr. Moore failed to appear or call on February 20th. Although his response to the motion for summary judgment was to be filed by March 18th [Dkt. #163], becausethe plaintiff was pro se I sua sponte granted him an extension to April 24, 2014 to respond to the summary judgment motion, as well as the motion to bar. [Dkt. #175].
On March 17, 2014, Mr. Moore filed a motion "for temporary withdrawal due to medical issues." [Dkt. #176]. The motion, which sought a six month delay, claimed that Mr. Moore had been prescribed certain drugs for his knee having "go[ne] out" whose "psychotropic side effects" prevented him from being able to respond to the motion. With the motion, Plaintiff attached nine pages of medical records. [Dkt. No. #176]. I concluded that that motion did not warrant the relief requested. See Order of 3/28/14. [Dkt. #177]. Nonetheless, as will be seen below, Mr. Moore effectively received multiple, informal extensions to file his brief.
Yet, as of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, Mr. Moore still has not filed any response even though he has, in effect, had four months to respond. Additionally, despite repeated requests, he has refused to give a date when one might expect his response. In fact, on May 29th, all Mr. Moore could say is that his doctor had told him that he could do no gardening. But he refused to give any estimate no matter how far off in the future of when he would respond to the motion for summary judgment. [Dkt. #205].1
Not surprisingly, the Union has now moved for a ruling on the motion for summary judgment and its motion to strike the plaintiff's expert's report. [Dkt. #206].
The indisputable facts surrounding this case compel the conclusion that Mr. Moore is attempting to absolve himself of his obligation to pursue his own case and to abide by reasonable deadlines. He is seeking to forestall judgment in the case and leave the Union dangling while he pullthe strings of all the participants. Mr. Moore's pro se status does not entitle him to the kind of singular and special treatment that he unfairly seeks to accord himself. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Ammons-Lewis v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 543 Fed.Appx. 591, 594 -595 (7th Cir.2013); 3SM Realty & Development, Inc. v. FDIC, 393 Fed.Appx. 381, 383 (7th 2010); In re Gunartt, 355 Fed.Appx. 66, 68 (7th Cir. 2009); McKinney v. Guthrie, 309 Fed.Appx. 586, 590 (3rd Cir. 2009); Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir.1998).
Because of Mr. Moore's conduct, it is necessary to review in some detail the ostensible reasons for Mr. Moore's continuing failure to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
Overall, Mr. Moore has been a rather reluctant participant in his own case, both before and after firing his second set of attorneys in October 2013, and proceeding pro se. [Dkt. # 161-163]. Mr. Moore began his case, pro se, and by August 11, 2011 he had failed to appear for status hearings three times without excuse. Judge Holderman, then presiding over this matter, ordered him to appear at the next hearing or his case would be dismissed for want of prosecution. [Dkt. #39]. Mr. Moore retained counsel and was represented at that hearing. [Dkt. ##40-43]. In December 2011, the case was referred here for discovery supervision and a settlement conference. [Dkt. ##45-46].
In February 2012, Mr. Moore's counsel moved to withdraw. The motion was denied based upon representations made in open court. [Dkt. #54]. But by May 2012, notwithstanding whatever representations had been made, Mr. Moore's counsel again moved to withdraw. That motion was granted. [Dkt. #76, Dkt. #83].
By May 2012, Mr. Moore was again ignoring dates for hearings before Judge Holderman and this court, missing hearings on May 31st , June 12th, and June 26, 2012, without calling or providing any excuse. [Dkt. ##84, 91, 97]. As before, he was warned that his consistent failure to participate in his case could result in the dismissal of his suit. [Dkt. #97].2
On September 13, 2012, I held a settlement conference, and the parties reported the case was not settleable. [Dkt. #109]. A month later, new counsel for Mr. Moore filed their appearances. [Dkt. ##113-118]. In May 2013, there were proceedings to determine whether a second settlement conference would be productive. In light of the plaintiff's having doubled his demand from the time of the earlier unsuccessful settlement conference, it was agreed that another conference would be pointless. [Dkt. ##144-145].
In late July 2013, the parties consented to jurisdiction in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). [Dkt. ## 156-158]. Mr. Moore was represented by new counsel at this time.
In early October 2013, less than a year after they filed the Fourth Amended Complaint [Dkt. #122], the plaintiff's five new lawyers filed their motion to withdraw, having been discharged by Mr. Moore. [Dkt. ##159-162]. That motion was granted. [Dkt #162].
In November, Mr. Moore informed the court that he would be proceeding pro se [Dkt. #163] dnd he began to again miss court hearings. For example, he sent an email on January 14, 2014 to my courtroom deputy saying he would not be in attendance at the hearing on January 16th, because he might be needing some sort of surgery. [Dkt. #164]. The date was changed to the 17th to accommodate Mr. Moore.
On January 17th, Mr. Moore called my courtroom deputy saying he wouldn't be appearing because he was taking some unspecified medicine and that he thought he was going to require surgery at the VA but would give no specifics. When counsel for defendant appeared, we tried to reach Mr. Moore. Even though it was 8:40 a.m., there was no answer at his house phone. The hearing was continued to January 21st and Mr. Moore was ordered to attend. [Dkt. #165].
On January 21st Mr. Moore again failed to appear or call as he had been ordered to do. Consequently, we were forced to contact him by phone. Mr. Moore claimed he was unable to come to court and that he was taking psychotropic medication in connection with his having thrown out his back shoveling snow. He said the drugs caused his speech to be slurred, but as I observed in at least two minute orders, several months apart, his speech was lucid, clear, forceful, unimpaired and did not differ in the slightest from his speech that I had observed in the several times he appeared before me and during a settlement conference in 2012. [Dkt. ## 109, 166, 192].
I explained that Mr. Moore's unsupported representations could not suffice to postpone the progress of the case and that he needed to substantiate those representations. In this conversation, Mr. Moore said he would not appear at a continued status the next day, and I said that we would contact him by phone. He was ordered to submit medical support for his position that he was unable to come to court or to file a response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment that was currently due on March 18th - the defendant's motion having been filed on February 14, 2014. [Dkt. # 163]. The case was continued to January 22nd. [Dkt. #166].
On January 22nd, we contacted Mr. Moore by phone, and he represented that he would abide by the briefing schedule which had been in place for some time. Yet, he refused to appear at yet another rescheduled hearing the next day. He was ordered to produce medical evidence to supporthis claims that he could neither come to court nor call in to participate in his lawsuit. Both the court and Local 597 mailed Mr. Moore copies of Local Rule 56.1, governing summary judgment motions and responses, and an explanation of the consequences of failure to comply with that rule. [Dkt. #167].
Interestingly, on February 4, 2014, Mr. Moore was seen walking the picket line at the Local 597 Union hall on Ogden Avenue in Chicago. He did not require the use of a cane or other device. [Dkt. ## 183,187].3
At the next status hearing on February 20th, Mr. Moore didn't show up and didn't bother to call in to participate or explain his absence. [Dkt. #175]. The minute order of February 20th cautioned Mr. Moore that if he continued to shirk his obligations, his case could be dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution and/or failure to comply with court orders. [Dkt. #175].
On March 17th, Mr. Moore filed a typed motion to temporarily "withdraw from his case" for six months due to claimed medical issues with his back and knee. [Dkt. #176]. He claimed he would be having two surgeries - apparently on his back and knee. Later, on February 25th, he canceled a scheduled hernia surgery at the VA, claiming he...
To continue reading
Request your trial