Snowden v. Henning et al
ORDER: Pursuant to the Mandate (Doc. 46) of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to REOPEN this case and REINSTATE COUNT 1 against Defendant JEREMY HENNING. Defendant Henning is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to COUNT 1 in the Complaint (Doc. 1) and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/15/2023. (jsy)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DONALD V. SNOWDEN,
Case No. 19-cv-01322-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded this matter for
reinstatement of the following claim:
Count 1 against Defendant Jeremy Henning for subjecting Plaintiff Donald V. Snowden
to the unauthorized use of force during his arrest at the Quality Inn Hotel on September 12,
2019, in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment and pursuant to Bivens.
Snowden v. Henning, 72 F.4th 237 (7th Cir.), decided Jun. 27, 2023, reh’g denied Nov. 3, 2023.
Count 1 already survived screening against Defendant Henning under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(Doc. 15). In lieu of an answer, Defendant Henning filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim on Count 1. (Doc. 24). After reviewing the matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), this Court concluded that Count 1 presents a new Bivens context and special factors
warrant restraint in expanding the implied damages remedy into this context in light of evolving
Supreme Court precedent. (Doc. 38). The Court granted the motion to dismiss Count 1. Id.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that Count 1 does not present a new Bivens context
and reversed this Court’s dismissal of the Bivens claim. See Snowden v. Henning, 72 F.4th 237
(7th Cir. 2023). The Seventh Circuit recently declined to revisit the issue en banc. (Doc. 46). The
case has now been remanded for reinstatement of Count 1 against Defendant Henning. Id.
Pursuant to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision and mandate (Doc. 46), the
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to REOPEN this case and REINSTATE COUNT 1 against
Defendant JEREMY HENNING. All other claims and defendants remain dismissed from this
action.1 The case caption is hereby MODIFIED as follows: DONALD V. SNOWDEN,
Plaintiff v. JEREMY HENNING, Defendant.
Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to COUNT 1
in the Complaint (Doc. 1) and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Defendant Henning need only respond to Count 1 as described in the Merit Review Order.
Once Defendant Henning files an Answer, the Court will enter a separate Scheduling and
Discovery Order containing further instructions and deadlines for litigation of this claim.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court
and the opposing parties informed of any change in his address; the Court will not independently
investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 14 days after a transfer
or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this
action for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Count 4, an Illinois state law battery claim, also survived screening against Defendant Henning, prompting
this defendant to file a Motion to Substitute United States in his place and convert the claim to one governed
by the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff objected and made it clear that he only intends to pursue a Bivens
claim against Defendant Henning in this case. This Court dismissed Count 4 without prejudice after
relinquishing jurisdiction over that claim. This disposition was not addressed by the Seventh Circuit.
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?