Maldonado v. Garcia

CESAR MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER GARCIA, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 13 C 8981

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

July 22, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge:

On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff Cesar Maldonado brought a three-count First Amended Complaint against Defendants Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, Correctional Officer Esteban Garcia, Superintendent Robert Lyles, Jr., and Executive Director Gary Hickerson alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due process deliberate indifference claim based on Defendant Officer Garcia's failure to protect (Count I), a failure to train claim against Defendant Officers Lyles, Hickerson, and Sheriff Dart pursuant to Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (Count II), and an indemnification claim under 745 ILCS 10/9-102 against Cook County (Count III).

Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) and Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) Response. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' summary judgment motion and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety. Further, the Court denies Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's Rule 56.1(b)(3) Response as moot because the Court considered Defendants' arguments within the context of each challenged fact.

BACKGROUND

I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1

Local Rule 56.1 "is designed, in part, to aid the district court, 'which does not have the advantage of the parties' familiarity with the record and often cannot afford to spend the time combing the record to locate the relevant information,' in determining whether a trial is necessary." Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Local Rule 56.1(a) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law." Petty v. City of Chicago, 754 F.3d 416, 420 (7th Cir. 2014). "The non-moving party must file a response to the moving party's statement, and, in the case of any disagreement, cite 'specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.'" Id. (citation omitted); see also L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(A). Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) "requires specifically that a litigant seeking to oppose a motion for summary judgment file a response that contains a separate 'statement ... of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment.'" Sojka v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 686 F.3d 394, 398 (7th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

In general, the purpose of Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses is to identify the relevant admissible evidence supporting the material facts, not to make factual or legal arguments. See Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006) ("statement of material facts did [ ] not comply with Rule 56.1 as it failed to adequately cite the record and was filled with irrelevant information, legal arguments, and conjecture"). "When a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's statement in the mannerdictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion." Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009). Also, the Court will not consider the additional facts set forth in Plaintiff's Rule 56.1(b)(3)(A) Response because any such facts must be in his Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement of Additional Facts. See Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Sojka, 686 F.3d at 398. With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the relevant facts underlying this lawsuit.

II. Relevant Facts

During the relevant time period, Maldonado was a pretrial detainee assigned to Division V, Tier 2-J at the Cook County Jail ("CCJ"), which houses medium-level classified detainees. (R. 31, Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 5.) The September 25, 2012, incident underlying this lawsuit involves another detainee, Romain Oatis, who attacked Maldonado causing serious injury. (R. 44, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt. Add'l Facts ¶¶ 3, 4, 43.) As a result of the attack, Maldonado was in a coma for five days and suffered severe head trauma making it necessary for doctors to remove part of his skull to relieve the pressure in his brain. (Id. ¶ 43.) Maldonado has a speech impediment, headaches, and memory loss resulting from the attack. (Id.)

On September 25, 2012, Maldonado left Tier 2-J in the morning and went to the law library with several other detainees. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 8.) Once Maldonado returned from the library, Defendant Officer Garcia took him to the day room, although Officer Garcia was supposed to transport Maldonado to his cell on Tier 2-J, which is on the upper deck. (Id. ¶ 11; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 6.) Officer Garcia took Maldonado to the day room because Officer Garcia did not have the necessary back-up to take Maldonado to his cell. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 7.)

At the time Officer Garcia took Maldonado back to the day room, detainees from thelower deck were there. (Id. ¶ 10.) Pursuant to CCJ policy, detainees from the lower and upper decks are not allowed in the day room at the same time due to safety and efficiency concerns. (Id. ¶ 5; Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 56.) Once Maldonado entered the day room, he had words with Oatis, after which the confrontation between them escalated. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 29-30.) At the end of the fight, Maldonado was unconscious. (Id. ¶ 37.) A correctional officer then called an emergency "10-10," after which several other correctional officers responded and medical staff arrived. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 46, 47.)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). In determining summary judgment motions, "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). After "a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party 'must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (quotation omitted). A court's "job when assessing a summary judgment motion is not to weigh evidence, make credibility determinations, resolve factual disputes and swearing contests, or decide which inferences to draw from the facts."Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014).

ANALYSIS

I. Fourteenth Amendment Deliberate Indifference Claim - Count I

In Count I of his First Amended Complaint, Maldonado brings an individual capacity claim against Officer Garcia asserting that Officer Garcia was deliberately indifferent in failing to protect him from Oatis' attack that caused him serious injury. Because Maldonado was a pretrial detainee during the relevant time period, his claim falls under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which "impose[s] upon prison officials a duty to protect inmates from violent assaults at the hands of fellow prisoners." Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). To clarify, "a prison has a duty to its inmates to protect them against violence by other inmates because imprisoning a person blocks his access to forms of self-protection and police protection that he would have on the outside." Glade ex rel. Lundskow v. United States, 692 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. This "duty is violated only by deliberate indifference to a known substantial risk." Smith v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Dep't, 715 F.3d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835 ("deliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence"). To establish deliberate indifference, Maldonado must show that Officer Garcia was actually aware of a substantial risk of harm to Maldonado's safety, and yet, failed to take the appropriate steps to protect Maldonado from the harm. See Smith, 715 F.3d at 191; Klebanowski, 540 F.3d at 639.

Viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in Maldonado's favor, there is no doubt that he suffered significant injuries as a result of Oatis' unfortunate attack. That being said, theundisputed evidence reveals that Officer Garcia did not have actual knowledge and was not aware of the substantial risk that Oatis, or any other detainee, would violently attack Maldonado. See Tidwell v. Hicks, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 3937549, at *3 (7th Cir. June 26, 2015) (plaintiff's "burden in establishing a failure-to-protect claim" requires plaintiff "to show, either through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the defendants had actual knowledge that he was at serious risk of being harmed."). More specifically, Maldonado testified that prior to the incident, he was never scared of Oatis and never told any CCJ officer that he was scared of Oatis. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 20, 21.) In fact, at his deposition, Maldonado testified that prior to the incident, he "never had a problem with [Oatis] so there would be no reason for me to be scared of him." (R. 31-2, Ex. II, Maldonado Dep., at 22....