Fanady v. Dart et al
| Mr. Steve Fanady |
| Mr. Tom Dart |
| Steve Fanady |
| Jane Gubser and Tom Dart |
| 1:2023cv05806 |
| August 21, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Sharon Johnson Coleman |
| Prisoner: Habeas Corpus |
| 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 22 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Before the Court are Petitioner's motion for summary judgment #15 and Respondent's motion to strike the motion for summary judgment #19 . Respondent is incorrect that a motion for summary judgment is "simply not an appropriate vehicle for resolving Fanady's custody issues." (Dkt. 19 at 3.). Although the Court questions why Petitioner brought a summary judgment motion at this stage of the proceedings, the motion is theoretically allowed in habeas corpus as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with statutory provisions or the Habeas Rules. Habeas Rule 12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4); see also Matta-Bellestreros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 259 (7th Cir. 1990) (discussing how a court, acting in accordance with summary judgment procedure, was not acting inconsistently with the habeas rules). Nonetheless, while habeas corpus cases are technically civil proceedings, they have features different than traditional civil proceedings and instead are better considered "a group unto themselves." Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 636 (7th Cir. 2000). Unlike in traditional civil litigation, it is very uncommon to file a summary judgment motion in a habeas case because the proceedings are typically centered upon the habeas petition and associated briefing. To put it another way, just because a summary judgment motion can be brought does not mean there is value in bringing the motion at this time, especially as Respondents have not had the chance to respond. The Court has broad discretion to control its own docket, Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S. Ct. 1636, 137 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1997). As such, the Court strikes the summary judgment motion #15 without prejudice and, in turn, Respondent's motion to strike the summary judgment motion #19 is granted. The parties are instructed to continue briefing the habeas corpus petition as established by the Court's September 15, 2023, order. If petitioner believes he has additional information necessary to support his habeas petition that is not included in the original petition, he can include that information in his reply briefing. If necessary, the Court may permit a sur-reply. Although the Court does not entertain whether sanctions under Rule 11 are appropriate at this time, the Court notes that this is the second time the Court has had to address a collateral set of issues presented by the parties outside the habeas corpus petition. The Court instructs the parties to refocus their attention on the briefing of the habeas corpus petition. The October 11, 2023 hearing is stricken. Mailed notice. (ym) |
| Filing 21 RESPONSE by Steve Fanady to MOTION by Respondents Tom Dart, Jane Gubser to strike MOTION by Petitioner Steve Fanady for partial summary judgment on Ground One of Complaint for a Writ of Habeas Corpus #15 , memorandum in support of motion #17 , Rule 56 statement, #19 (Grochocki, Laura) |
| Filing 20 NOTICE of Motion by Christina Faklis Adair for presentment of motion to strike, #19 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 10/11/2023 at 10:00 AM. (Adair, Christina) |
| Filing 19 MOTION by Respondents Tom Dart, Jane Gubser to strike MOTION by Petitioner Steve Fanady for partial summary judgment on Ground One of Complaint for a Writ of Habeas Corpus #15 , memorandum in support of motion #17 , Rule 56 statement, #18 (Adair, Christina) |
| Filing 18 RULE 56 (a) Statement by Steve Fanady regarding motion for partial summary judgment #15 on Ground One of Complaint for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit Exhibit 11)(Grochocki, Laura) |
| Filing 17 MEMORANDUM by Steve Fanady in support of motion for partial summary judgment #15 (Grochocki, Laura) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Motion by Laura Anne Grochocki for presentment of motion for partial summary judgment #15 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 10/11/2023 at 10:00 AM. (Grochocki, Laura) |
| Filing 15 MOTION by Petitioner Steve Fanady for partial summary judgment on Ground One of Complaint for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Grochocki, Laura) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Respondents' unopposed motion for extension of time to answer amended petition for writ of habeas corpus- person in state custody #12 is granted. Respondents to file a response to the amended petition #9 by 10/27/2023. Petitioner to file a reply by 11/17/2023. Once the matter is fully briefed, the Court shall take it under advisement. No appearance necessary on 10/4/2023. Mailed notice. (ym) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Motion by Christina Faklis Adair for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer #12 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 10/4/2023 at 10:00 AM. (Adair, Christina) |
| Filing 12 MOTION by Respondents Tom Dart, Jane Gubser for extension of time to file answer regarding amended complaint #9 (Unopposed) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Adair, Christina) |
Filing 11
ORDER: The Court has reviewed Petitioner's counseled amended habeas corpus petition, supplemental additional facts, and memorandum in support of the habeas corpus petition [9, 10] pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Respondent is ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the amended habeas corpus petition and supporting materials by October 13, 2023, and Petitioner shall reply by November 3, 2023. In addition to answering or otherwise responding to the claims in the habeas corpus petition, Respondent's filing shall also address the question of whether this case arises under 28 U.S.C. 2241 or 28 U.S.C. 2254. Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 9/15/2023. Mailed notice.(ym)
|
| Filing 10 MEMORANDUM amended complaint #9 by Steve Fanady Memorandum in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus (Grochocki, Laura) |
| Filing 9 Petition for Habeas Corpus AMENDED complaint by Steve Fanady against Tom Dart, Jane Gubser (Attachments: #1 Supplement Additional Facts In Support of Habeas)(Grochocki, Laura) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER: Respondents' motion to strike summons returned executed #5 is granted. The September 12, 2023, notice of motion date #6 is stricken. The September 18, 2023 answer date set in Petitioner's return of service #4 is stricken. The habeas corpus petition #1 is stricken. Petitioner may bring an amended petition by September 22, 2023 in accordance with the instructions set forth in this Order. Respondents shall not answer or otherwise respond to the habeas corpus petition at this time. The Clerk is instructed to update the docket to reflect that: (1) the parties are "Petitioner" and "Respondent," instead of the current label of "Plaintiff" and "Defendant; and (2) the Nature of Suit is "530 Prisoner: Habeas Corpus." Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 9/7/2023. Mailed notice.(ym)
|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Steve Fanady to motion to strike #5 , notice of motion #6 (Grochocki, Laura) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Motion by Christina Faklis Adair for presentment of motion to strike #5 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 9/12/2023 at 10:00 AM. (Adair, Christina) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Defendants Tom Dart, Jane Gubser to strike summons returned executed #4 (Responsive Pleading Date in Dkt. No. 4.) (Adair, Christina) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Steve Fanady as to Jane Gubser on 8/28/2023, answer due 9/18/2023. (Grochocki, Laura) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Tom Dart, Jane Gubser by Briana J. Leatherberry (Leatherberry, Briana) |
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Tom Dart, Jane Gubser by Christina Faklis Adair (Adair, Christina) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Tom Dart, Jane Gubser (jxm, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jcm) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (jcm) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Steve Fanady; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20952944. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Declaration Attorney Appearance Form)(Grochocki, Laura) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
