hand-scrawled motion for reconsideration was apparently a half hearted attempt at
filing some document before the ten day deadline under Rule 59(e) and thus the
intial filing was an improper attempt at circumventing Rule 59(e).

On June 15, 2004, we also stated by minute order that all motions in limine
would be due by July 7, 2004, and all responses were due July 14, 2004. On July 7,
2004, Plaintiff attempted to file motions in limine which were deemed deficient by
the Clerk of Court. On July 13, 2004, Plaintiff filed amended motions in limine. On
July 19, 2004, we denied all of Plaintiff's pending motions other than the original
motion for reconsideration due to filing deficiencies and a failure to comply with the
court’s orders. Plaintiff's amended motion for reconsideration was not properly
bound and the courtesy copy had more pages than the filed copy. Plaintiffs counsel
failed to sign Plaintiff's motions in limine brief. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
respond to Defendants’ motions in limine, but a portion of the text in Plaintiff's brief
was cut off and unreadable. Plaintiff also included the incorrect case number on one
of his attempted filings. On July 19, 2004 we admonished Plaintiffs counsel
regarding these deficiencies and told counsel that the court would expect Plaintiff's
counsel to follow court rules and orders in the future.

On June 15, 2004, we ordered the parties to submit a pre-trial order in the

court chambers in accordance with the court’s standing order regarding pretrial


Plaintiff every opportunity to comply with the court’s orders and rules and Plaintiffs
counsel has ignored the court’s admonitions and orders.

If there are statute of limitations bars that would render this dismissal a
dismissal with prejudice and Plaintiff is willing to dutifully comply with the court
rules and orders, Plaintiff needs to properly file a motion for reconsideration within
the prescribed time limit and the court will consider the motion. Therefore, we

dismiss all remaining claims in this action without prejudice.

Samuel weal eels ra) 3)

United States District Court Judge

Dated: August 4, 2004



the noticed motion and the motion was denied. On February 5, 2004, Plaintiff filed a
motion to reconsider the court’s denial of its January 27 motion. Taking into
consideration the prejudice that Plaintiff would suffer due to his counsel’s lack of
dilligence if Plaintiff were not allowed to file a response to Defendants’ 56.1
statement, we granted Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and allowed Plaintiff to
file a response to Defendants’ 56.1 statement of facts.

On June 15, 2004, we issued a memorandum opinion, granting summary
judgment for Defendants on all claims except for the claims against the individual
officers for excessive force relating to the alleged kicking incident. On June 25,
2004, attorney Michael Hoard (“Hoard”) filed a motion for reconsideration of our
summary judgment ruling on behalf of Plaintiff. Although, Hoard filed an
appearance on March 6, 2003, he has never sought leave to appear and thus is not an
attorney of record. It was thus improper for him to file a motion before the court in
this action. The motion is written by hand and is barely legible in portions. The
brief makes reference to a Northern District case as “ruling authority” and cites
various cases but fails to provide any of the page numbers for the cases cited. The
motion does not address any of the proper reasons for bringing a motion for
reconsideration. On June 30, 2004, Plaintiff attempted to file an amended motion for

reconsideration which expanded his arguments from the initial motion. The initial


orders which requires a jointly submitted pretrial order. Instead of a joint pre-trial
order, Plaintiffs counsel and Defendants’ counsel each attempted to submit their
own version of the pre-trial order. After the Courtroom Deputy contacted the
parties’ counsel and advised them that the improperly submitted pre-trial orders
would not be accepted, the parties’ counsel came to the Courtroom Deputy’s office
and attempted to organize their separate materials into one pre-trial order. The
Courtroom Deputy eventually accepted a document that the parties indicated would
be the joint pre-trial order. However, subsequently, the court chambers received a
copy of a pretrial order from Plaintiffs counsel that was improperly bound and was
signed solely by Plaintiffs counsel. Thus, on the day before the scheduled pre-trial
conference, the court was uncertain as to which document was the proper joint pre-
trial order. Also, an examination of both pre-trial order documents revealed that
they did not comply with the court’s pre-trial order requirements as listed in our
standing order.

In order to resolve this issue prior to the pre-trial conference, the court asked
the Courtroom Deputy to contact counsel for both sides. Counsel for Defendants
immediately came to the office of the Courtroom Deputy when called and began
working on sorting through the pre-trial order submissions to put together one

comprehensive joint pre-trial order. The Courtroom Deputy was unable to reach


Minule Ordey Form (0697)

AN

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

N: f Assigned Jud; - j Sitting Judge if Oth
vor Magistrate Judge | __ Samuel Der-Yeghiayan than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C9577 DATE 8/4/2004
CASE Johnson vs. Doe
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.)

@)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) o Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oOo Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer briefdue__-

(4) a Ruling/Hearingon__setfor___at

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor__—at__—

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on____——ssetfor_—-—sat,—

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on_____—at

(8) Qa [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_____at

(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) © FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) «= (Other docket entry] For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion, this matter is

hereby dismissed without prejudice. All pending dates and motions are hereby stricken. Terminating case.

Enter Memorandum Opinion.

a For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required, umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

§ 06 lod

Notified counsel by telephone. jaic docketed

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. Jynag

i.
docket deputy nits
Copy to judge/magistrate judge

reat
Tomas date mailed notice
courtroom
MW deputy's
initials

+ <Dateltime received in ;
central Clerk's Office traling deputy nts



Plaintiffs attorney Demitrus Evans and left her a phone message. Even though
attorney Hoard was not a counsel of record, the Courtroom Deputy also called Hoard
to try and resolve the issue. A secretary at Hoard’s office indicated that Hoard was
busy with other matters and could not take the court’s call. Even after the
Courtroom Deputy explained the situation, he was told that Hoard would not receive
his call. As of 6:00 p.m. on August 3, 2004, the day before the pre-trial conference,
neither Hoard nor Evans had contacted the Courtroom Deputy in response to the
court’s call.

Finally, Plaintiff in this case filed a reply brief in support of his motion for
reconsideration of the court’s partial summary judgment ruling. However, despite
the court’s many admonitions regarding following court procedures, the filing was
deficient because Plaintiffs counsel did not submit an original signature with her
brief. Plaintiffs counsel has on numerous occasions ignored the District Court filing
procedures and failed to comply with the court’s orders. Plaintiff's counsel have
continually caused needless confusion and delay in this action. We are scheduled to
begin a pre-trial conference today. Yet, we do not have a proper pre-trial order
before us to prepare for the conference and the eventual trial. Therefore, we find
that, due to the lack of diligence by Plaintiff's counsel and disregard for the court’s

orders, a dismissal without prejudice of this action is warranted. We have given


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS JOHNSON, ) Ff
) \ :
Plaintiff, ) AUG 5 2004
)
v. ) No. 01 C 9577
)
CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, )
CHRISTOPHER HACKETT, and )
THOMAS GAFFNEY, and CITY OF +?)
CHICAGO, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION

SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge

This matter was set for a pre-trial conference on August 4, 2004. However,
due to failure by Plaintiff's counsel to abide by District Court rules and this court’s
orders, we strike the pre-trial conference, strike the trial date, and dismiss this action
without prejudice. The decision to dismiss is based upon the long history of lack of
diligence and a disregard for this court’s orders by Plaintiffs counsel in this action
which will be illustrated below.

On October 29, 2003, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in this

action. Plaintiff was unable to respond to the motion in a timely fashion and on

“Ts

1


November 13, 2003, we granted Plaintiffs request for an extension until November
26, 2003, to file an answer brief. On November 26, 2003, Plaintiff filed an answer
to Defendants’ summary judgment order. However, Plaintiff subsequently
determined that his answer was insufficient and sought leave to amend his answer on
December 2, 2003. We granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended answer to the
summary judgment motion. Plaintiff filed an amended answer to Defendants’
summary judgment motion and Defendants subsequently filed a reply brief on
December 16, 2003. On January 7, 2004, a half month after Defendants filed their
reply, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a response to Defendants’ 56.1
statement and response to Defendants’ reply. Plaintiff claimed that he “inadvertently
failed to attach the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants [sic] Rule 56.1 Statement
of Uncontested Facts.” (Mot. 1). Plaintiff noticed up the motion before the court,
but, when the court called the case on the date selected by Plaintiff, no one appeared
before the court on behalf of Plaintiff and the motion was accordingly denied. On
January 21, 2003, Plaintiff again filed a motion for leave to file a response to
Defendants’ 56.1 statement and response to Defendants’ reply despite the fact that
Defendants had filed their reply over a month before and despite the fact that neither
Plaintiff nor his counsel appeared for the same motion filed previously. Once again,

on January 27, 2004, neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiffs counsel appeared in court for