Jackson v. Chicago Public Schools et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 2/15/2017:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

KIMYUNA JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15 C 6990
v.
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff

Kimyuna

Jackson’s

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

[ECF No. 50] is denied.

STATEMENT
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second attempt to move for
summary judgment.

The Court denied her first motion on the

grounds that it violated Local Rule 56.1 by failing to include a
Statement of Material Facts.

As the Court explained in its

ruling,

filed

“Plaintiff

resembles
proceeding

has

not

what

the

rule

requires.

pro

se,

this

status

does

anything
Even

F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 1998).”

though

not

obligation to comply with the Local Rule.

that

remotely

Plaintiff

relieve

her

of

is
the

Members v. Paige, 140

ECF No. 38 (Order Denying Mot.

Summ. J.), Apr.7, 2016.
Plaintiff’s current Motion for Summary Judgment again omits
a Statement of Material Facts.

In fact, the Motion is in large

part identical to what was submitted, and rejected, previously.
Compare, ECF No. 50 (Second Mot. for Summ. J.) ¶¶ 12-16, 19, 2542

to

ECF

No.

30

(First

Mot.

for

Summ.

J.)

at

unnumbered

pages 5-15.

The

Motion

citations to the record.

is

still

almost

entirely

lacking

in

Where there is something that can be

construed as direction to the evidentiary record, the “citation”
is either inaccurate or unilluminating.

For example, Plaintiff

at one point in her Motion directed the Court to look at “the
response the Plaintiff submitted 03/17/2016.”

The Court looked

only to find that Plaintiff did not submit anything on this date
that can be found on the docket.

Likewise, Plaintiff said that

the

.

Defendants’

“change[d]

story

.

.

can

be

read

in

the

testimonies submitted to the courts of the due process hearing
on 11/4/2015.”
transcript
Officer,

from
a

ECF No. 50 ¶ 8.
the

necessity

hearing
since

The Court read the 226-page

before
Plaintiff

the
did

Impartial

Hearing

not

to

cite

any

specific testimony, and found that the relevant testimony did
not say what Plaintiff reported it to say.

See, ECF No. 22,

Ex. A at 62:22-66:5.
In short, Plaintiff, to her detriment, has ignored what the
Court told her in its last ruling.
opinion

in

the

hopes

that,

however

The Court here quotes that
belatedly,

its

words

may

provide guidance:
Should the plaintiff wish to re-file a Motion for
Summary Judgment, the Court cautions her to address
the issue in the case:
whether the administrative
record of the proceeding before the Impartial Hearing
Officer clearly shows that her approval of the
Individualized Education Plan adopted by the Chicago
Board of Education was clearly erroneous. In order to
do so, Plaintiff must reference matters in the record
that support her opposition.
For the same reason that it denied summary judgment last
time, the Court must here do so again.

- 2 -

Nonetheless, the Court

is sympathetic to the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se
in a matter that may require legal sophistication.
it exhorts her to search for counsel.
what

it

Attorney

has

said

previously:

Representation

but

she

“she

Accordingly,

It further repeats to her
may

must

refile
list

a

with

Motion

for

specificity

which [legal aid] entities she has contacted and explain why
these entities were unable to assist her.”

ECF No. 44 (Order

Denying Att’y Rep.), Apr. 18, 2016.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: February 15, 2017

- 3 -