Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-00282-SPB-RAL
01-29-2021
ANTHONY RAY THOMPSON, Plaintiff v. LISA SLATZER & REX HILDEBRAND, Defendants
ECF No. 38 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's "Motion for Summary/Declaratory Judgment Governed by F.R.Civ.P. Rule[s] 56/57" (Motion for Summary Judgment) at ECF No. 38 be DENIED.
II. Report
Plaintiff Anthony Thompson (Thompson) filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC): Lisa Slatzer (Slatzer)—a counselor at State Correctional Institution at Forest (SCI-Forest), and Rex Hildebrand (Hildebrand)—an Inmate Classification Systems Analyst. Thompson alleges that the Defendants miscalculated his Inmate Custody Level Classification, resulting in the loss of his "incentive transfer" to another Pennsylvania prison and his prison job, in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and DOC procedures. See ECF No. 1-2, p. 4, 6, 8. Thompson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 5, 2020. ECF No. 38. Thompson's motion should be denied because he has not filed a brief in support of his motion or a concise statement of material facts as required by Rule 56(B) of the Local Rules of this Court.
A. Procedural History
Thompson commenced this lawsuit by filing a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County at Number 104-2019, on July 22, 2019. ECF No. 1. The Defendants properly removed the lawsuit to this federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b) on September 30, 2019. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. See ECF No. 55 (Order denying motion to remand the action back to Pennsylvania state court). Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on November 22, 2019. ECF No. 8. Thompson filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on June 5, 2020. ECF No. 38. He included several exhibits, including a portion of the 2017 Inmate Handbook regarding the DOC's policies on prison transfers. ECF No. 38-1. Thompson also filed copies of a misconduct charge dated April 12, 2019 charging him with "refusing to obey an order" and "failure to stand count or interference with count," as well as his guilty plea to both misconduct charges dated April 18, 2019. Id. He also included filings from his grievance record for Grievance Number 836914. ECF No. 38-2. He did not file a brief in support of his motion or a concise statement of material facts. The Defendants filed their Response in Opposition on July 28, 2020. ECF No. 50. The motion is ripe for disposition.
Because it is recommended that Thompson's claims be dismissed based on failure to comply with Local Rule 56, the Court will provide an in-depth discussion of the facts of Thompson's claims at a later date when it issues a separate Report and Recommendation on the Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 74.
B. Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires the court to enter 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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Rule 56(B)(1) of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania requires any party moving for summary judgment to accompany the motion with a Concise Statement of Material Facts and a Memorandum or Brief in Support of the motion. LCvR 56(B) (2016). Rule 56(B)(1) mandates that the movant's Concise Statement of Material Facts set forth:
the facts essential for the Court to decide the motion for summary judgment, which the moving party contends are undisputed and material, including any facts which for purposes of the summary judgment motion only are assumed to be true.LCvR 56(B)(1).
Rule 56 (B)(1) also directs that the "facts set forth in any party's Concise Statement shall be stated in separately numbered paragraphs, each of which must be supported by citation to "particular pleading, deposition, answer to interrogatory, admission on file or other part of the record...." Id. The movant's "supporting memorandum must address applicable law and explain why there are no genuine issues of material fact to be tried and why the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." LCvR 56(B)(2).
Courts in this district require strict compliance with the provisions of Local Rule 56. See, e.g., Marinkovic v. Battaglia, 2019 WL 4600207, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2019); Coleman v. Tice, 2018 WL 5724125, at *2 n. 3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2018), report and recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 5722316 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2018); First Guard Ins. Co. v. Bloom Services, Inc., 2018 WL 949224, at *2-3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2018); Hughes v. Allegheny County Airport Authority, 2017 WL 2880875, at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 6, 2017). Where a party fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rules 56(B)(1)-(2), the Court may deny his motion for summary judgment. See Spano v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2018 WL 679508, at *1 n. 2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2018). Cf. Stuby v. Bedford Cty., 2013 WL 5724065, at *1 n. 1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2013) (holding that defendants' "failure to comply with the local rules alone could be a basis for denying their motion for summary judgment," but nonetheless ruling on the merits of the motion).
This Court's Local Rules are readily accessible online. Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, Effective Nov. 1, 2016, https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/local-rules-and-orders (last accessed Jan. 21, 2021).
While due accommodation is given to Thompson's pro se status, he is still responsible for following basic rules of procedure. Mcneil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S. Ct. 1980, 124 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1993). Courts in the Third Circuit have a well-established preference "that cases be disposed of on the merits whenever practicable." C.J. Hughes Constr. Co. v. EQM Gathering OPCO, LLC., 358 F. Supp. 3d 486, 489 (W.D. Pa. 2019) (quoting Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1181 (3d Cir. 1984)). See also In re Lawson, 774 Fed. Appx. 58, 59-60 (3d Cir. 2019). Still, while courts provide some leniency to pro se litigants when applying procedural rules, the Court "'is under no duty to provide personal instruction on courtroom procedure or to perform any legal chores for the [pro se litigant] that counsel would normally carry out.'" Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S. Ct. 2441, 159 L. Ed. 2d 338 (2004)). Nor may pro se litigants ignore procedural rules that apply to parties assisted by counsel. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (explaining that "we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel").
C. Analysis
"A district court has discretion to adopt local rules." Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191, 130 S. Ct. 183, 175 L. Ed. 2d 657 (2010) (citing Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 645, 107 S. Ct. 2607, 96 L. Ed. 2d 557 (1987); 28 U.S.C. § 2071; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83). Those rules have "the force of law." Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169, 49 S. Ct. 144, 73 L. Ed. 243 (1929). "[A] district court can depart from the strictures of its own local procedural rules where (1) it has a sound rationale for doing so, and (2) so doing does not unfairly prejudice a party who has relied on the local rule to his detriment." Advanced Fluid Sys., Inc., 958 F.3d 168, 181 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Eleven Vehicles, Their Equip. & Accessories, 200 F.3d 203, 215 (3d Cir. 2000)). Here, no sound reason exists to depart from Local Rule 56.
As the plaintiff, Thompson has the burden of proving each element of his claims. To prevail on summary judgment, he must demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to those elements. His failure to file a Concise Statement of Material Facts makes it impossible for the Court to identify what facts Thompson believes are material to his claims and undisputed. This failure also makes it impossible for the Defendants to respond to Thompson's factual position. Thompson's noncompliance further extends to his failure to file a brief or memorandum setting forth his legal position. At this stage of the proceedings, neither the Court nor the Defendants have an obligation to divine legal arguments on behalf of Thompson.
Further, while the prejudice to Defendants caused by Thompson's noncompliance is apparent, denial of his motion based on his noncompliance does not deprive him of his ability to pursue his claim. The Defendants have filed their own Motion for Summary Judgment and an accompanying Brief in support of the motion and Concise Statement of Materials Facts. ECF Nos. 74-76. Thompson has filed a Response in opposition to the motion. ECF No. 79. In a forthcoming Report and Recommendation, the Court will address the legal merits of Thompson's claims and whether any may proceed to trial. To the extent some or all of Thompson's claims survive Defendants' motion, he will have the opportunity to present them at trial.
D. Additional Direction to Plaintiff Thompson on Compliance with Local Rule 56(C)(1)
Although Thompson filed a Response in opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, he has not properly responded to the Defendants' Concise Statement of Material Facts as required by Local Rule 56(C)(1). Although he responds factually to paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Defendants' Concise Statement, the rest of his filing is argument in narrative form, noncompliant with Local Rule 56(C)(1). This rule requires parties responding to a motion for summary judgment to file their own concise statement responding to each numbered paragraph in the movant's concise statement. See LCvR 56(C)(1). The non-moving party's responsive concise statement must admit or deny the facts contained in the movant's concise statement; set forth the basis for denial if any fact within the movant's concise statement is not entirely admitted, provide appropriate citation to the record; and set forth, in separately numbered paragraphs, any other material facts upon which the non-movant relies in opposition to the motion. Id.
A non-moving party faces severe consequences for not properly responding to a moving party's concise statement. Any alleged material facts "set forth in the moving party's Concise Statement of Material Facts...which are claimed to be undisputed, will for the purpose of deciding the motion for summary judgment be deemed admitted unless specifically denied or otherwise controverted by a separate concise statement of the opposing party." LCvR 56(E). See also Marinkovic, 2019 WL 4600207, at *2 (plaintiff's filing of a responsive concise statement which did not respond point by point to each paragraph of the defendants' concise statement as required by LCvR 56(C)(1) required that the court deem each fact not responded to as admitted).
Pursuant to Rule 56(C)(1), Thompson must file a responsive Concise Statement that responds point by point to each numbered paragraph in the Defendants' Concise Statement. To the extent hs fails to do so, Thompson will be deemed to have admitted all statements in the Defendants' Concise Statement that are factually supported. LCvR 56€. Finally, Thompson is reminded that "[i]t is not the Court's obligation...to comb the...record...to identify a material factual dispute where the party opposing summary judgment has not done so." Benjamin v. State Farm Ins., 2017 WL 3535023, at *1 n. 1 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2017).
E. Conclusion
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Report, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 38] be DENIED.
III. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).
/s/_________
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
United States Magistrate Judge Dated: January 29, 2021