Rincon v. United States of America et al
Filing
66
OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 9/11/2012. (rmn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
SANDRA RINCON, as Administrator of
the Estate of Rosalio Rincon,
Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
) No. 2:10-CV-268 PS
)
)
)
)
ORDER
District courts have long had the inherent power to enter summary judgment sua sponte.
See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986) (“[D]istrict courts are widely
acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the
losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence.”). Indeed, this
power has recently been codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)
(“After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may . . . consider summary
judgment on its own after identifying for the parties material facts that may not be genuinely in
dispute.”).
Upon review of the trial briefs filed in this case, the Court believes it may be appropriate
to grant summary judgment in Defendant’s favor on Plaintiff’s negligence claims based on the
discretionary function exemption to the Federal Tort Claims Act. As Plaintiff herself candidly
admits in her trial brief: “[P]lanning how to effect an arrest ‘falls within the discretionary
function exception to the FTCA.’ Maravilla v. United States, 867 F. Supp. 1363, 1382 (N.D. Ind.
1994).” [DE 60 at 6.]
The Court believes the parties’ trial briefs have sufficiently outlined the undisputed facts
and law on these claims. Nevertheless, if either party believes any other materials are necessary
to evaluate Plaintiff’s negligence claims, additional briefs may be filed within 14 days, up to and
including September 25, 2012.
Finally, to be entirely clear, Plaintiff’s intentional tort claim for battery is not amenable to
summary judgment, for all the reasons already articulated in my June 1, 2012 Opinion. Thus,
plaintiff’s battery claim – brought pursuant to FTCA provisions 28 U.S.C. § 2674 and §
2679(b)(1) and governed by Indiana state law – will proceed to trial.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 11, 2012
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
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?