Jackson v. Chicago Public Schools et al
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
Case No. 15 C 6990
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
[ECF No. 50] is denied.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second attempt to move for
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
F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 1998).”
obligation to comply with the Local Rule.
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
citations to the record.
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
testimonies submitted to the courts of the due process hearing
ECF No. 50 ¶ 8.
The Court read the 226-page
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.
The Court here quotes that
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.
It further repeats to her
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?