Williams v. Canarecci et al

Filing 60

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE: GRANTING 56 Motion for Summary Judgment; DIRECTING the Clerk to enter FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS and AGAINST the Plaintiff Michael Williams. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 02/06/2014. (lyb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL WILLIAMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
FRANK CANARECCI, et al.,
Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 3:11-CV-047

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the summary judgment motion
filed by the Defendants on December 13, 2013. For the reasons set
forth below, the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (DE 56) is
GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter
FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants and against the Plaintiff
Michael Williams.

BACKGROUND
Michael

Williams,

a

pro

se

prisoner,

filed

an

amended

complaint and was granted leave to proceed against Neil Huffine and
David Williams on his claim that they used excessive force against
him in October 2010 while he was housed at the St. Joseph County
Jail as a pre-trial detainee. He was also granted leave to proceed
against Nestor Gomez for not intervening to stop those officers
from using excessive force and against Julie Lawson for denying him
medical treatment for injuries that he sustained as a result.

On December 13, 2013, the Defendants filed a summary judgment
motion along with the Appendix C notice as required by N.D. Ind.
L.R. 56-1(f). That notice informed Williams about the summary
judgment process and provided him with a copy of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
as well as

N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1. It alerted him that if he did not

follow those rules that he could lose this case. It concluded by
telling him:
Before the court rules on the motion, you have the right
to file a response. If you do not respond to the
summary-judgment motion, you may lose this case. If you
need more time to respond, you must file a motion asking
for more time before the deadline expires. The court may
– but is not required to – give you more time.
N.D. Ind. L.R. Appendix C.
The deadline for responding to the summary judgment motion was
January 10, 2014. That deadline has passed, but Williams has
neither responded nor sought additional time to do so. Therefore
the Court will now rule on the motion. Because Williams has not
responded, he has not disputed any of the facts presented by the
Defendants. Therefore the Court will accept the facts presented by
the Defendants as undisputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary
judgment is appropriate “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.” A party asserting that a fact
-2-

cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by
“citing to particular parts of materials in the record” or show
“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.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1).
To establish a genuine issue of fact, the nonmoving party must come
forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue,
not “simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts.” First Nat’l Bank of Cicero v. Lewco Secs. Corp.,
860 F.2d 1407, 1411 (7th Cir. 1988) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). Summary
judgment “is the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit . . ..”
Springer v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479, 484 (7th Cir. 2008). In
ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all
facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson,
477

U.S.

at

255.

The

court

will

not

“make

credibility

determinations, weigh the evidence, or decide which inferences to
draw from the facts; these are jobs for a factfinder.” Payne v.
Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003).
The Defendants assert that excessive force was not used
against Williams. They assert that he did not suffer any injury and
that he did not need medical treatment. In support of their
assertions, they refer the Court to the report written by Deputy
Yolanda Miller/Lewis.

-3-

ON OCTOBER 25, 2010 AT APPROX. 08:55 I DEPUTY
MILLER/LEWIS, YOLANDA #1073, CALLED INMATE WILLIAMS,
MICHAEL J. CONTROL#295833 INTO THE PROPERTY ROOM TO BE
DRESSED OUT FOR RELEASE TO THE MARSHALS. I PUT ALL OF HIS
PROPERTY ON THE COUNTER, TELLING HIM HE COULD HAVE
EVERYTHING EXCEPT HIS BELT, HAT AND ITEMS IN THE PLASTIC
BAG,AT THAT TIME HE TOOK THE BELT AND HAT AND REFUSED TO
GIVE IT TO ME. HE WANTED TO KNOW WHY HE COULD NOT HAVE
IT. I TOLD HIM HE HAD TO PUT IT IN A PLASTIC BAG BECAUSE
YOU CANNOT HAVE A BELT IN THIS JAIL. HE REFUSED TO GIVE
ME THE BELT AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS I CALLED OVER THE
RADIO FOR DEPUTY LAWSON-RULLI,CHRIS #1417 LETTING HIM NO
WILLIAMS WOULD NOT GIVE ME HIS BELT, HE SAID HE COULD NOT
HELP BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ALONE. SGT. WILLIAMS, DAVID
#974 CALLED OVER THE RADIO ASKING WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS I
TOLD HIM I HAD A GUY IN THE PROPERTY ROOM THAT WOULD NOT
GIVE ME HIS BELT. SGT.WILLIAMS, DEPUTY GOMEZ,NESTOR #1291
AND CPT. HUFFINE,NEIL #910 CAME TO THE PROPERTY ROOM AND
TRIED TO GET THE BELT FROM WILLIAMS, BUT HE CONTINUED TO
REFUSE THE BELT WAS CONFISCATED WITHOUT INCIDENT. INMATE
WILLIAMS CONTINUED BEING AGGRESSIVE AND MOUTHY. WHEN TOLD
TO GO BEHIND THE CURTAINS HE SAID WHAT DOES IT MATTER AND
GOT UNDRESSED IN FRONT OF DEPUTY MILLER/LEWIS. AFTER HE
GOT DRESSED HE WAS TOLD TO GO TO THE BOOKING DESK, HE DID
WITHOUT INCIDENT.
DE 20 at 43.
They also refer to the interrogatory response of Captain Neil
Huffine.
I did not assault the plaintiff, and no one else
assaulted the Plaintiff. After hearing a request for
assistance over the radio indicating that the Plaintiff
had taken his belt and refused after several requests to
give it back to Deputy Miller-Lewis, I arrived to the
property room, and Deputy Nestor Gomez and Sgt. David
Williams arrived. Sgt. Williams reached from behind me to
hold Plaintiff’s shirt collar, at which point the
Plaintiff handed over his belt. This was the only
physical contact made upon the Plaintiff in my presence,
and the only such contact of which I am aware. Plaintiff
continued to be verbally abusive, but the belt was
confiscated without incident. We left the Plaintiff in
the property room with Deputy Miller-Lewis. There was no
further incident, and no injury that occurred to the
Plaintiff while I was there.
-4-

DE 21 at 7.
Finally, they refer to the interrogatory response of Warden
Julie Lawson.
I have never been told by the Plaintiff, or anyone else
before this lawsuit was filed, that there was ever an
incident involving the Plaintiff in the property room on
October 25, 2010. The filing of the lawsuit was the first
I ever heard of the incident. I was not present at any
time during this incident in the property room.
DE 21 at 2.
As previously explained, Williams does not dispute any of
these facts and the Court accepts them as undisputed. Taken
together, they demonstrate that no excessive force was used against
Williams and that he did not require any medical treatment.
Therefore the summary judgment motion will be granted.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (DE 56) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. The
clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants
and against the Plaintiff Michael Williams.

DATED: February 6, 2014

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court

-5-