Friend v. Valley View Community Unit School District 365U, 789 F.3d 707

Background

Devon Friend (formerly Devon Hodges), a high-school basketball player, sued Valley View CSD 365U, several school officials, the Illinois High School Association (IHSA), and IHSA executive director under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state law theories (six claims total).
After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment and complied with Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1 by submitting numbered facts with evidentiary citations.
The district court found Friend’s Rule 56.1 responses and his statement of additional facts noncompliant (many denials lacked citations; many additional facts lacked any record support) and therefore deemed the defendants’ properly supported facts admitted.
The district court granted summary judgment on all claims; on appeal the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s Rule 56.1 enforcement for abuse of discretion and the grant of summary judgment de novo.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it held the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing strict compliance with Rule 56.1, and it struck most of Friend’s appellate arguments for failing to cite the record; only the First Amendment retaliation claim was meaningfully addressed and independently failed because undisputed evidence showed third-party complaints triggered the residency investigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
District court enforcement of Local Rule 56.1	Friend argued his denials and additional facts were supported by the record and should not be deemed admitted	Defendants argued Friend’s responses lacked the specific citations required by Rule 56.1 and thus their facts should be deemed admitted	Court: No abuse of discretion; Friend’s denials and additional facts failed to comply and properly supported defendant facts were deemed admitted
Sufficiency of Friend’s appellate brief and record citations	Friend relied on his Rule 56.1 statement and a few broad deposition citations for appellate factual assertions	Defendants argued Friend’s brief failed to cite specific record pages as required by Fed. R. App. P. 28 and thus the Court should not hunt through the record	Court: Struck portions of brief reliant on unsupported facts; appellant failed to meet appellate citation rules
First Amendment retaliation claim (standing/causal link)	Friend contended the residency investigation was retaliation for his mother’s complaints to the school	Defendants argued the investigation was prompted by third-party residency complaints and not by any protected speech by Friend or his family	Court: Affirmed summary judgment; even if protected, independent, adequate basis (third-party complaints) supported the investigation
Remaining claims (equal protection, due process, Monell, §1983 conspiracy, Illinois Tort Immunity Act indemnification)	Friend raised these on appeal but largely failed to brief or cite specific errors	Defendants argued summary judgment proper given admitted facts and procedural defaults	Court: Affirmed summary judgment; many arguments forfeited or inadequately briefed and district court’s rulings stood

Key Cases Cited

F.T.C. v. Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2005) (district court’s local-rule enforcement reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., L.L.C., 401 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2005) (give weight to district court’s interpretation of its local rules)
Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2004) (denials must point to specific record support)
Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding strict compliance with local summary judgment rules)
Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2010) (appellate briefs must cite directly to the record rather than to Rule 56.1 statements)
United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991) (courts will not search the record for a party’s proof)