Hollingshead V Wexford Health Sources Inc
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