Hicks v. Chavez

Background

Darnell R. Hicks, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Detective Chavez. Hicks alleges that Chavez sexually harassed him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Chavez filed a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the moving party contends that no genuine dispute over a material fact requires a trial.

Local Rule 56.2

The court explained that, in cases involving a self-represented party, a moving party generally must provide a separate notice explaining the consequences of summary judgment and the evidence needed to oppose the motion. The Southern District of New York’s Local Civil Rule 56.2 requires that the notice be filed and served with the motion and include the full texts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1.

The court also noted that a defective notice may be sufficient if it clearly explains the requirements and consequences of summary judgment through other means. But the court emphasized that the notice must be understandable to a non-lawyer.

Analysis

Chavez filed the summary-judgment motion on October 30, 2024, but did not provide a compliant Local Rule 56.2 notice with it. On January 16, 2025, Chavez filed the text of Local Rule 56.2, but that filing did not include Federal Rule 56 or Local Rule 56.1 and was not filed with the motion. Chavez then filed a revised notice that was served on Hicks and included the two rules.

The court found that the revised notice still did not comply with Local Rule 56.2. It omitted the rule’s plain, clear language explaining how a self-represented litigant could properly oppose summary judgment. The court further found that the revised notice did not qualify as an adequate substitute notice because it did not explain the nature and consequences of summary judgment in straightforward terms.

Hicks filed nothing concerning Chavez’s motion. Based on the complete absence of activity by Hicks, the court could not determine whether he understood the motion’s nature or his obligation to submit admissible evidence showing a factual dispute for trial.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Chavez’s motion without prejudice, with leave to re-file in accordance with the court’s local rules. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket Number 42 and mail a copy of the order to Hicks. The opinion’s stated basis for the ruling was Chavez’s failure to provide the required notice; it did not decide the underlying sexual-harassment allegation.