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, )

Download PDF
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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?