WASHINGTON v. BARNHART et al

Filing 218

ORDER re the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment filed at ECF Nos. 202, 205, 208 and 214. Plaintiff shall be allowed until October 9, 2020 to file his response in opposition to the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment as more fully stated herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on September 8, 2020. (kcb)

Case 3:17-cv-00070-KRG-LPL Document 218 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HENRY UNSELD WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHAN BARNHART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 17 – 70J
District Judge Kim R. Gibson
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

ORDER
The following Motions for Summary Judgment and supporting documents have been
filed by the following Defendants: (1) a Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support
thereof filed by Defendant Irwin (ECF Nos. 202, 203); (2) a Motion for Summary Judgment,
Brief in Support thereof and Concise Statement of Material Facts filed by Defendant Mayle
(ECF Nos. 205, 206, 207); (3) a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Barnhart,
Hutchinson, Robinson, Johnston, Kauffman, Payso, and Stramat (ECF No. 208); and (4) a
Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in Support thereof, Concise Statement of Material Facts
and Appendix by Defendants Bowers, Cinko, Costea, Foster, Hyde, Maust, McDonnell,
Peschock, Snyder, Sroka and Turner (ECF Nos. 214, 215, 216, 217). 1 Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be allowed until October 9, 2020, to file
his response in opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no extensions will be granted without just cause.

Defendants Adelekan and Girone’s Motion for Summary Judgment is due on October 1, 2020.
See ECF No. 209.

1

1

Case 3:17-cv-00070-KRG-LPL Document 218 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is advised that his response to the motions
may include opposing or counter-affidavits (executed by Plaintiff or other persons) which have
either been sworn to under oath (notarized) or include at the end of the document, immediately
before the Plaintiff’s signature, the following in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746: “I declare
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
______, 20

day of

.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all affidavits, opposing or counter-affidavits must be
based upon the personal knowledge of the person executing the affidavit; that no affidavit,
amended complaint, pretrial narrative or other document containing Plaintiff’s allegations will be
considered when determining the motions for summary judgment unless it has been notarized
before a notary public or unless it contains a declaration under penalty of perjury as set forth
above; that Plaintiff may attach to his affidavits copies of any depositions, answers to
interrogatories, institutional records or other documents he wishes this court to consider when
addressing the summary judgment motions; and that the motions for summary judgment will be
evaluated under the procedure standard set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; and that failure to respond may result in entry of judgment against him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall comply with Local Rule 56.C by filing
his brief in response, concise counter statement of facts and any appendix, as described below:
C. Opposition Requirements. Within 30 days of service of the motion for
summary judgment, the opposing party shall file:
1. A Responsive Concise Statement: A separately filed concise
statement, which responds to each numbered paragraph in the
moving party's Concise Statement of Material Facts by:

2

Case 3:17-cv-00070-KRG-LPL Document 218 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 4

(a) admitting or denying whether each fact
contained in the moving party's Concise Statement
of Material Facts is undisputed and/or material;
(b) setting forth the basis for the denial if any fact
contained in the moving party's Concise Statement
of Material Facts is not admitted in its entirety (as to
whether it is undisputed or material), with
appropriate reference to the record (See LCvR
56.B.1 1 for instructions regarding format and
annotation); and
(c) setting forth in separately numbered paragraphs
any other material facts that are allegedly at issue,
and/or that the opposing party asserts are necessary
for the court to determine the motion for summary
judgment;
2. Memorandum in Opposition: The memorandum of law in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment must address
applicable law and explain why there are genuine issues of
material fact to be tried and/or why the moving party is not entitled
to judgment as a matter of law; and
3. Appendix: Documents referenced in the Responsive Concise
Statement shall be included in an appendix. (See LCVR 56.B.3 2
for instructions regarding the appendix).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Local Rule 56.E, alleged material facts
set forth in the moving party’s Concise Statement of Material Facts or in the opposing party’s
Responsive Concise Statement, which are claimed to be undisputed, will for the purpose of
1. The pertinent portion of LCVR 56.B.1 reads: “A party must cite to a particular pleading, deposition, answer to
interrogatory, admission on file or other part of the record supporting the party’s statement, acceptance, or denial of
the material fact.”
2. LCVR 56.B.3 reads as follows:
3. Appendix. Documents referenced in the Concise Statement shall be included in an appendix.
Such documents need not be filed in their entirety. Instead, the filing party may extract and
highlight the relevant portions of each referenced document. Photocopies of extracted pages, with
appropriate identification and highlighting, will be adequate.
3

Case 3:17-cv-00070-KRG-LPL Document 218 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 4

deciding the motion for summary judgment be deemed admitted unless specifically denied
or otherwise controverted by a separate concise statement of the opposing party. See Enigh
v. Miller, Civil No. 08-1726, 2010 WL 2926213 (W.D. Pa. July 23, 2010) (collecting cases).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiff fail to comply with this order, the
Court will consider dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
Dated: September 8, 2020.
/s/ Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
United States Magistrate Judge
Cc:

Henry Unseld Washington
AM-3086
SCI Somerset
1600 Walters Mill Rd
Somerset, PA 15510
Counsel for Defendants
(Via CM/ECF electronic mail)

4