Knighton v. Reyes et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/27/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CONNIE KNIGHTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SUPERINTENDENT REYES, THOMAS DART, )
JOHN MUELLER, JEAN KIRIAZES,
)
UNKNOWN DISTRICT,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No.

11 C 1335

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In consequence of the untimely death of this Court’s friend
and colleague Honorable William Hibbler, Judge Hibbler’s calendar
has been redistributed among the other judges of this District
Court on a computer-generated basis, and that has brought this
action to this Court’s calendar.

This Court’s review of the

chambers file received from Judge Hibbler’s staff, as well as the
docket printout, has confirmed that the Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”)
56 motion filed by sole defendant Officer Kozel (“Kozel”) must be
granted.
Indeed, this Court’s initial screening of the docket and the
parties’ filing suggested that Judge Hibbler’s original March 31,
2011 minute order may have been somewhat overgenerous in
permitting pro se plaintiff Connie Knighton (“Knighton”) to
proceed against Kozel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”).
This should not be misunderstood as a criticism of that ruling,

for Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) counseled fully four
decades ago that pro se pleadings should be viewed through a
generous lens, and from that perspective (with the aid of
substantial favorable inferences) Knighton’s Complaint could well
have been viewed as surviving -- though barely.
But now Kozel has tendered his Rule 56 motion for summary
judgment, properly supported in the manner called for by this
District Court’s LR 56.1 implementation of that Rule.

Judge

Hibbler had earlier set a timetable for briefing any such
dispositive motion, and after Kozel’s filing Judge St. Eve
(acting on Judge Hibbler’s behalf) extended Knighton’s response
date to March 16, 2012.
More than 10 days have elapsed since that extended due date,
and nothing has been forthcoming from Knighton.

That may be

understandable, for this Court’s review of the Rule 56 motion has
shown it to be unanswerable in terms of negating any arguable
violation of Knighton’s constitutional rights by Kozel.
It is unnecessary to cite chapter and verse in that respect,
for the comprehensive Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Memorandum”) filed on December 15,
2011 supports that conclusion beyond peradventure.

Briefly,

during the 72-hour lockdown period at the County Jail during
which Knighton did not have access to cold running water in his
cell, he sustained no physical harm from the failure to take his

2

medication.

Moreover, Knighton had only the briefest contact

with Kozel at the beginning of that time frame, when the latter
was performing a tier check, and Knighton did not pursue the
matter with him further.
There are more figurative nails of legal argument that
further seal the coffin of Knighton’s attempt to state a viable
claim against Kozel, but there is really no need to repeat (or to
elaborate on) what has been set out so persuasively in Kozel’s
Memorandum.

Suffice it to say that nothing in the parties’

interaction or in the sequence of events even arguably supports a
finding of deliberate indifference on Kozel’s part.
In short, this action does not support a finding that any
Eighth-Amendment-violative instance of cruel and unusual
punishment by Kozel occurred.

On that score, Knighton has failed

to meet the standards defined by such decisions as Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) and Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825
(1994) and their progeny.

This action is dismissed.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

March 27, 2012

3