Daniels v. Lawrence et al

Filing 104

ORDER re (Doc. 103 ) Plaintiff's Notice to the Court and Rule 56 Notice. The parties should review the attached Order carefully. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Koch and Skidmore (Doc. 100) remains due no later than September 23, 2021. Further, Plaintiff's Motion for Copies (Doc. 99 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 9/8/2021. (arm)

Case 3:20-cv-00096-DWD Document 104 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #699

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARRIAN DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FRANK LAWRENCE,
M. SIDDIQUI,
NURSE REVA,
DR. SKIDMORE,
JOHN KOCH,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 20-cv-96-DWD

ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court for the purposes of docket control. On
February 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. All Defendants have filed
Answers to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 64, Doc. 65, Doc. 93). Plaintiff has also filed a
renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 67) which is fully briefed (See Docs. 67,
71, 72, 88) and under consideration with the Court.
Further, all Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of

and under consideration with the Court. Specifically, Defendant Siddiqui filed his
Motion for Summary Judgment on May 4, 2021 (Doc. 73). Plaintiff filed his response on
June 11, 2021 (Doc. 89). Defendants Lawrence and Reva filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment on July 9, 2021 (Doc. 95). Plaintiff filed his response on July 19, 2021 (Doc. 98).

1

Case 3:20-cv-00096-DWD Document 104 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #700

On August 24, 2021, Defendants Koch and Skidmore filed their Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 100). Plaintiff has not filed a response to this Motion, but the
time for doing so has not yet passed. However, on September 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a
Notice to the Court (Doc. 103). In this document, Plaintiff alleges that his personal
property has been taken, and states that he will not be able to respond to the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Koch and Skidmore on August 24, 2021 (Doc. 103). Plaintiff
does not appear to be requesting any relief from the Court regarding this Notice, such as
an extension of his current response deadline. However, the Court reminds Plaintiff that

September 23, 2021.
Rule 56 Notice to Plaintiff
Plaintiff should further review the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Notice sent
to Plaintiff by Defendants Koch and Skidmore (See Doc. 102). However, in light of
nce of caution, the Court will also include
this Rule 56 Notice language in this Order, so that Plaintiff is clearly informed of the
consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment. To that end, Rule
56 provides in relevant part:
(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A
party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense
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.
***
2

Case 3:20-cv-00096-DWD Document 104 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #701

(c) Procedures.
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot 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 consider only 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
ed 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
to it; or
(4) issue any other appropriate order.
Consistent with Rule 56, any factual assertion or statement ma
affidavits and/or other documentary evidence may be taken as true by the Court unless
the non-movant (Daniels) contradicts the movant with counter-affidavits and/or other
3

Case 3:20-cv-00096-DWD Document 104 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #702

documentary evidence. Daniels 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 Daniels does not respond to the motion
for summary judgment, the Court may enter judgment in favor of Defendant and this
matter may be terminated. Further, the failure to file a response by the September 23,
s discretion, be considered an admission of the merits

2021

se to the motion remains due no later than
September 23, 2021.
Motion for Copies
On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Copies (Doc. 99). By this Motion,
Plaintiff requests copies of certain exhibits he previously filed in this matter. Plaintiff
represents that he wants to use these exhibits to supplement his Response to Defendant
was filed on July 19, 2021 (Doc. 98), and
therefore asks the Court to send him copies of the same. The Court is unable to discern

descriptions in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of his Motion. These documents include payment
authorization forms dated January 1, 2020, May 9, 2020, and May 12, 2020, which are

Judgment dated September 21, 2020 (Doc. 44, pp.
Motion for Summary Judgment dated October 13, 2020 (Doc. 51, p. 12)

4

Case 3:20-cv-00096-DWD Document 104 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #703

The second set of documents are related to Grievance Number 33-5-20, and are

Judgment dated September 21, 2020 (Doc. 44, pp. 9-10, 17-20). A third set of documents
contain three letters from the Administrative Review Board dated December 17, 2018,
November 19, 2019, and August 3, 2020. These documents are attached
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment dated June 11, 2021 (Doc. 89, pp. 9-11).

reasons for which Plaintiff plans to use these documents, the Court DENIES
Motion for Copies (Doc. 99). Instead, the Court will review the above-identified exhibits

Judgment at Doc. 89, and if appropriate, in

Motion (Doc. 73).

Conclusion

Defendants Koch and Skidmore remains due no later than September 23, 2021
Motion for Copies (Doc. 99) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2021

______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

5