Davis v. Chester Mental Health Center et al

Filing 50

Rule 56 Notice and Order Extending Deadline to Respond to 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion Plaintiff's response to the summary judgment motion is due on or before July 28, 2020. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 6/25/2020. (dsw)

IN THEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSEPH HARPER,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:18-CV-1119-SMY

ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
On December 13, 2019, Defendant Harper filed a motion for summary judgment
on this issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Doc. 46). However, the motion
and the brief did not include the required Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 notice. As a
pro se litigant, Davis is entitled to notice of the consequences for failing to respond to a
motion for summary judgment. See Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281, 285 (7th Cir. 1992); Lewis
v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1982). To that end, Rule 56 provides:
(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party may
move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense – or part of each
claim or defense – on which the summary judgment is sought. The court shall
grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The
court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.
***
(c) Procedures.
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot
Page 1 of 3

be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion
only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence
of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the fact.
(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party may
object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a
form that would be admissible in evidence.
(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need only consider the cited materials, but it
may consider other materials in the record.
(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or
oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would
be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to
testify on the matters stated.
***
(e) Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact. If a party fails to properly
support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion
of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:
(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;
(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;
(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials – including
the facts considered undisputed – show that the movant is entitled to it; or
(4) issue any other appropriate order.
Consistent with Rule 56, any factual assertion or statement made in the movant’s
affidavits and/or other documentary evidence may be taken as true by the Court unless
the non-movant (Davis) contradicts the movant with counter-affidavits and/or other
Page 2 of 3

documentary evidence. Davis may not rely on the allegations in the pleadings to support
his claim; rather he must show by affidavit or other documentary evidence that there is a
genuine dispute as to a material fact. If Davis does not respond to the motion for
summary judgment with affidavits or other documentary evidence, the Court may grant
judgment in favor of Defendant and this matter may be terminated. Further, the failure
to file a response within the deadline “may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered an
admission of the merits of the motion.” SDIL-LR 7.1(c)(1). Davis’ response to the motion
is due on or before July 28, 2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 25, 2020.
s/ STACI M. YANDLE
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3