Opinion ID: 2709092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sua Sponte Ruling on Equal Protection Claim

Text: Jones asserts that the district court ruled sua sponte on the equal protection claim. Because Defendants did not brief the equal protection argument in their summary judgment brief, Jones argues, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the issue constitutes impermissible sua sponte conduct. This assertion inadvertently bolsters our earlier com‐ plaint about the style and substance of Jones’s briefs. It is not difficult to see why Defendants had difficulty grappling with the legal claims in play in this case. The complaint is drafted in broad, generalized strokes. It is true that the most generous possible reading of the complaint would yield the conclusion Jones’s complaint does make a conclusory sug‐ gestion of an equal protection claim, and with the benefit of hindsight we are able to make out the pieces of the com‐ plaint that would support such a claim. But it is by no means a clearly presented argument to which Defendants failed to respond, either out of irresponsible lawyering or some tacti‐ cal decision to conceal the equal protection claim. Our decision is made easier, however, because the dis‐ trict court noted Defendants’ omission when ruling on No. 12‐3912 19 Jones’s motion to reconsider the magistrate’s denial of his motion to compel discovery, which ruling was made before Jones had filed his response to the summary judgment briefs. Defendants had an adequate opportunity to respond to this new argument. That is, this was by no means a true sua sponte decision in which the judge “decide[s] [a] suit[] without warning on the basis of considerations the litigants were not contesting.” Pactiv Corp. v. Rupert, 724 F.3d 999, 1001 (7th Cir. 2013). Indeed, Plaintiff raised the issue in his briefing on the motion to compel. The court took note of this dispute, observed that the equal protection claim “hinge[s] … in part, on the fact that his traffic stop and ar‐ rest occurred without any probable cause,” and ordered Jones to answer the summary judgment motion, which had been filed by the Defendants prior to the motion to compel. Plaintiff and Defendants both briefed the equal protection issue, in the opposition brief and the reply brief in support of the summary judgment motion, respectively. Accordingly, we do not find evidence of any impropriety on the part of the district court. The court provided the litigants with no‐ tice of the issue and an opportunity to brief it; that is all that the Federal Rules require it to do in granting summary judgment for an issue not raised by the initial summary judgment brief. Id. (quoting Rule 56(f)).