Case 2:21-cv-00194-JRS-MG Document 52 Filed 03/22/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 598
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`ROSALIO HERNANDEZ,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:21-cv-00194-JRS-MG
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTRY DENYING MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`This action is based on Rosalio Hernandez's allegations that the defendants violated his
`
`constitutional rights by placing him in solitary confinement for 16 years without meaningful
`
`reviews of his status, under inhumane conditions, and without adequate mental health care.
`
`
`
`Both sides have moved for judgment on the pleadings. "Judgment on the pleadings is
`
`appropriate when there are no disputed issues of material fact and it is clear that the moving party
`
`. . . is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Unite Here Local 1 v. Hyatt Corp., 862 F.3d 588,
`
`595 (7th Cir. 2017). A Court deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings may consider only
`
`"the matters presented in the pleadings"—and must consider them in the light most favorable to
`
`the nonmovant. Id. "Pleadings 'include the complaint, the answer, and any written instruments
`
`attached as exhibits.'" Federated Mutual Ins. v. Coyle Mechanical Supply, 983 F.3d 307, 312–13
`
`(7th Cir. 2020) (quoting N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of S. Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452
`
`(7th Cir. 1998)).
`
`
`
`The defendants seek judgment on the pleadings on grounds that Mr. Hernandez's complaint
`
`was untimely. Because he asserted that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to a period
`
`of mental incapacity, the defendants ask the Court to find that Mr. Hernandez was mentally capable
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00194-JRS-MG Document 52 Filed 03/22/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 599
`
`of filing suit—a showing they attempt to make by citing classification documents outside the
`
`pleadings. See dkt. 34 at 4–7. It is unclear how Mr. Hernandez could rebut their assertion without
`
`additional evidence outside the pleadings, such as medical records. This argument is appropriate
`
`for a motion for summary judgment, where the record can be properly developed. Cf. Federated
`
`Mutual Ins., 983 F.3d at 313 ("District courts should not allow motions for judgment on the
`
`pleadings to deprive the non-moving party of the opportunity to make its case.").
`
`
`
`The defendants also assert that they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings under the
`
`doctrine of qualified immunity. Their argument, however, does little more than restate the legal
`
`standard:
`
`Here, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not act plainly
`incompetent or in knowing violation of the law. Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient
`facts showing that some, or all, of the named Defendants personally engaged in
`conduct that was plainly incompetent, or in knowing violation of the law. The facts
`as pled fail to show that any of the named Defendants acted plainly incompetently,
`in knowing violation of the law, or in bad faith.
`
`Absent the pleading of facts which show plain incompetence or acts done in
`knowing violation of the law, these Defendants cannot be found personally liable
`in the present action. As such, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from
`suit. Therefore, judgment on the pleadings in their favor is appropriate and should
`be granted.
`
`Dkt. 34 at 8. "[P]erfunctory and undeveloped arguments . . . are waived." United States v. Cisneros,
`
`846 F.3d 972, 978 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). The Court found plausible claims
`
`at screening, and the defendants' argument presents no specific basis for reconsidering that finding.
`
`"Where the plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings, 'the motion should not be
`
`granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the non-moving party cannot prove facts sufficient to
`
`support his position.'" Housing Authority Risk Retention Group v. Chicago Housing Authority, 378
`
`F.3d 596, 600 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting All American Ins. v. Broeren Russo Const., 112 F. Supp.
`
`2d 723, 728 (C.D. Ill. 2000)). See also Redex, Inc. v. Atlanta Film Converting Co., No. 87 C 3508,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00194-JRS-MG Document 52 Filed 03/22/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 600
`
`1988 WL 9075, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 1988) ("[W]hen a plaintiff moves for judgment on the
`
`pleadings, we rely only on the facts alleged in the complaint and admitted in defendant's answer.").
`
`The defendants have denied the material components of Mr. Hernandez's complaint and asserted
`
`affirmative defenses. Indeed, factual disputes must be resolved just to determine whether the
`
`complaint is timely.
`
`The parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings, dkts. [33] and [44], are denied.
`
`Mr. Hernandez's motion for additional time to respond to the defendants' motion, dkt. [38], and his
`
`motion to strike the defendants' motion, dkt. [40], are denied as moot. This order does not preclude
`
`any party from raising an argument asserted in a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a motion
`
`for summary judgment after discovery has closed.
`
`The deadlines to complete discovery and file dispositive motions remain April 18 and
`
`May 18, 2022, respectively.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: 3/22/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`ROSALIO HERNANDEZ
`890437
`WABASH VALLEY - CF
`WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
`
`
`Thomas Joseph Flynn
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`tom.flynn@atg.in.gov
`
`
`3
`
`