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 -
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?