Hollingshead v. Wexford Health Sources Inc

• Court: District Court, C.D. Illinois
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-04038
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

JEFFREY HOLLINGSHEAD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-04038 ) WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., ) et al. ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff, then proceeding pro se, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The matter comes before this Court for ruling on Defendant Ek’s Motion for Leave to File Early Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 71), and Defendant Ek’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Doc. 76). The motions are denied. BACKGROUND On June 5, 2025, Defendant Ek filed a Motion for Leave to File Early Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 71). The motion requests “leave to file his early motion for summary judgment…while preserving his right to file a motion for summary judgment on the merits, if necessary, following the discovery.” Id. at 4. The proposed motion for summary judgment Defendant Ek attached asserts that Plaintiff failed to file suit against him within the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff objected to the motion. Defendant Ek thereafter filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Doc. 76). DISCUSSION As a threshold matter, Defendant Ek’s proposed reply addresses the substance of his motion for summary judgment. Because the arguments are not

relevant to the issue of whether he should be permitted to file the motion in the first place, the motion (Doc. 76) is denied. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides: “[u]nless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). Per the Court’s Text Order entered March 19, 2025, dispositive motions are

due October 15, 2025. The Court has not imposed any other restrictions on the parties’ abilities to seek relief under this rule. The federal rules and the court orders in this case permit Defendant Ek to file a motion for summary judgment prior to the deadline set forth above without first seeking leave of court, and his request for leave to file his proposed motion for summary judgment is moot. The other relief he seeks—leave to file a successive motion for summary judgment should his first motion prove unsuccessful—presents

a separate issue. The federal rules neither permit nor prohibit successive motions for summary judgment, and the decision to consider such a motion falls within the discretion of the district court. Narducci v. Moore, 572 F.3d 313, 324 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he filing of successive summary judgment motions is a matter within the discretion of the district court.”); Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 530 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he district court may, in its discretion, allow a party to renew a previously denied summary judgment motion or file successive motions, particularly if good reasons exist.”). Reasons to permit a successive motion may include: “(1) an intervening change in

controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence or an expanded factual record; and (3) need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Whitford, 63 F.3d at 530. The Court cannot determine whether permitting Defendant Ek to file a successive motion for summary judgment is appropriate prior to resolving a motion for summary judgment in the first instance, and any request for this relief is premature.

CONCLUSION Defendant Ek’s Motion for Leave to File Early Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 71) is denied. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to prevent Defendant Ek or any other party from filing any motion for summary judgment they deem necessary within the deadlines set by the Court. The Court will address any issues related to successive motions for summary judgment as they arise. Defendant Ek’s Motion (Doc. 76) is denied.

SO ORDERED. Entered this 22nd day of July, 2025. s/Ronald L. Hanna Ronald L. Hanna United States Magistrate Judge