« Environment/Economic Development - Agriculture in the Gubernatorial Campaign | Main | Indiana Law - Another indictment of an Indiana quasi-public entity »

Monday, August 30, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Two posted by 7th Circuit

Easley, Cynthia v. Kirmsee, David (ED Wis.)

Before COFFEY, RIPPLE, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
COFFEY, Circuit Judge. Cynthia Easley appeals the district court’s denial of her motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate its grant of summary judgment against her in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against four Wisconsin local governmental units and a number of their respective police officers. We affirm. * * *

Easley, however, never did file a response to the defendants’ summary judgment motions (local rule mandated the response within thirty days), and on November 26, 2002 (more than two months after the response due date), the court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court noted Easley’s failure to file a response, adopted the defendants’ findings of fact, and ruled on the merits of defendants’ (unopposed) motions, holding that Easley failed to establish that Kirmsee’s use of force was unreasonable, and, furthermore, that she also failed to prove that the four local government entities’ officers were inadequately trained. * * *

On appeal, Easley raises a most novel argument. She argues that she was justified in failing to respond to the defendants’ summary judgment motions because the court somehow led her attorney to believe that it had implicitly extended her response deadline in granting her motions for extensions of discovery. * * *

We hold that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion when he denied Easley’s Rule 60(b) motion and declined to vacate his grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The trial judge was entitled to expect Easley and her counsel to comply with his clear and straightforward pretrial scheduling orders and filing deadlines, and when compliance was not forthcoming, the trial judge was empowered to end the litigation by ruling on the merits of the defendants’ unopposed motions for summary judgment. We refuse to tie the trial judge’s hands and take away one of the tools necessary to enforce his scheduling orders and organize his trial calendars. It is regrettable that Easley, either through her own or her attorney’s negligence, or perhaps a combination of both, may very well have missed an opportunity to pursue what may possibly have been a meritorious cause of action (we express no opinion as to the merits of her claim). However, “[c]lients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys.” Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993); see also Tango Music, 348 F.3d at 247 (“If the lawyer’s neglect protected the client from ill consequences, neglect would become all too common. It would be a free good.” (quoting United States v. 8136 S. Dobson St., 125 F.3d 1076, 1084 (7th Cir. 1997))). Therefore, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Whiting, Bobbi J. v. Marathon County Sheriff (WD Wis.)
Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
KANNE, Circuit Judge. Bobbi Jo Whiting sued the Marathon County, Wisconsin Sheriff’s Department and certain of its employees and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging she suffered damages as a result of her exposure to a substantial risk of injury to which the defendants were deliberately indifferent. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Whiting appealed, and we now affirm. * * *

Put differently, Whiting sued the wrong parties—those who lacked actual knowledge of both the risk Smith posed to Whiting generally, and the no-contact order specifically. Concomitantly, Whiting’s decision to forego suit against the intake officer and/or Classification Officer Rye remains a riddle. Moreover, at oral argument, surprisingly, neither party knew whether attorney Voss had been disciplined in any way by the Wisconsin agency responsible for lawyer regulation, held in criminal contempt for willfully violating the no-contact order under Wisconsin’s counterpart to 18 U.S.C. § 402 (because, as Smith’s attorney, Voss was also bound by the court’s no-contact order, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)), or if any complaint at all had been lodged against this—attorney.

Whiting’s claims against the Sheriff’s Department are also doomed. In short, the Marathon County Sheriff’s Department is not a legal entity separable from the county government which it serves and is therefore, not subject to suit. Buchanan v. Kenosha, 57 F. Supp. 2d 675, 678 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (citing cases). As with the individual defendants, Whiting sued the wrong party.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 30, 2004 10:59 AM
Posted to Indiana Decisions