United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by Defendants LaPorte County, Indiana, and Town of
Westville, Indiana [ECF No. 66] pursuant to Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R.
56-1. For the reasons stated below, the Court
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment.
case arises out of the arrest and subsequent detainment of
Plaintiff, Richard Jendrezejczyk [sic] and the named
Defendants [sic] involvement commencing on or about
November 8, 2012.” Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to Defs.'
Mot. for Summ. J., Summary of the Facts, ECF No. 74-1, p.
to the evidence presented by the Defendants, the Plaintiff
was arrested pursuant to a valid warrant. After his arrest,
he was transported to the LaPorte County Jail and taken into
custody. He remained in custody there for approximately
fifteen hours, at which point he was released to the custody
of the Porter County Sheriff officers who transported him to
the Porter County Jail pursuant to the warrant. During his
detention in the LaPorte County Jail, he indicated he only
took medication twice a week, and there is no record he
requested any medication during his hours-long detention.
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. Summary judgment is the moment in litigation
where the non-moving party is required to marshal and present
the court with evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely
to find in his favor. Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency,
Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). The court's
role in deciding a motion for summary judgment “is not
to sift through the evidence, pondering the nuances and
inconsistencies, and decide whom to believe. The court has
one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence
of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that
requires a trial.” Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst
Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). “A
district court should deny a motion for summary judgment only
when the non-moving party presents admissible evidence that
creates a genuine issue of material fact.” Luster
v. Ill. Dep't of Corrs., 652 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir.
2011) (first citing United States v. 5443 Suffield
Terrace, 607 F.3d 504, 510 (7th Cir. 2010); then citing
Swearnigen-El v. Cook Cty. Sheriff's Dep't,
602 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2010)). Material facts are those
that are outcome determinative under the applicable law.
Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 427 (7th Cir. 1997).
“Irrelevant or unnecessary facts do not deter summary
judgment, even when in dispute.” Harney v. Speedway
SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 1099, 1104 (7th Cir. 2008).
Additionally, a court is not “obliged to research and
construct legal arguments for parties, especially when they
are represented by counsel.” Nelson v.
Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 2011).
moving party has fulfilled their burden and provided the
court with evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact, then the non-moving party must
“come forward with specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial.” LaRiviere v. Bd. of
Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 926 F.3d 356, 359 (7th Cir. 2019)
(quoting Spierer v. Rossman, 798 F.3d 502, 507 (7th
Cir. 2015)). The party opposing a properly supported summary
judgment motion may not rely on the allegations within their
own pleadings. Corbin v. Indiana, No. 3:16-CV-00602,
2017 WL 1509307, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 26, 2017). The
non-moving party must “marshal and present the court
with the evidence [he] contends will prove [his] case.”
Id. (quoting Goodman, 621 F.3d at 654).
Defendants have produced evidence showing that there is no
disputed, material fact: The warrant was valid, and the
Plaintiff was not denied any requested medical care; thus, no
constitutional violation took place, and the Defendants have
met their burden on summary judgment.
the Plaintiff has not provided this Court with any additional
evidence to aid in determining if there is a material issue
of fact. He regularly refers to the Third Amended Complaint
and the allegations therein, but he does not support his
arguments with any record evidence. Summary judgment is the
“put up or shut up” moment in litigation and the
non-moving party must provide not only evidence but evidence
a reasonable jury could rely upon. Goodman, 621 F.3d
at 654. The Plaintiff's allegations, unsupported by
facts, are not be enough to overcome a motion for summary
judgement. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 772-73
(7th Cir. 2003).
State Law Claims
Defendants have asked this Court to dismiss both the federal
and state law claims with prejudice. Defs.' Mem. in Supp.
of Mot. For Summ. J. at 13. Both parties have recognized the
Seventh Circuit's practice of dismissing state law claims
without prejudice when all federal claims have been dismissed
prior to trial. Id. at 13 and Pl.'s Mem. in
Opp., ECF No. 74-1, p. 6, (each citing Groce v. Eli
Lilly, 193 F.3d 496. 501 (7th Cir. 1999)).
parties observed, “the general rule is that, when all
federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court
should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims
rather than resolving them on the merits.” Wright
v. Assoc. Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir.
1994); see also Groce, 193 F.3d at 501 (7th Cir.
1999) (noting that established law of this circuit is that
the “usual practice” is to dismiss without
prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal
claims have been dismissed before trial). “Although the
decision is discretionary, when all federal claims in a suit
in federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption
is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over
any supplemental state-law ...