Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)

Citation: Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)
Parent Document: Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-12-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/618130/stevens-v-housing-authority-of-s... ↗

Full Text

1,238 chars

A.
  Stevens’ contention that the district court misapplied
the standard for summary judgment is a nonstarter.
She complains that HASB was not put to the burden of
showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970),
Stevens contends that HASB failed to carry its burden
when it did not foreclose the possibility that there were
any disputes of material fact. This deficiency alone,
according to Stevens, required the district court to deny
summary judgment. But the district court did not
misstate or misapply the standards for summary judg-
ment. And even if it had, our review is plenary, and so
“we can (and will) make an independent decision
under the proper standards.” Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458
F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir. 2006).
  Moreover, we rejected this very argument recently
in Crawford v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 647 F.3d 642
(7th Cir. 2011).6 In that case, the plaintiff also claimed
that, under Adickes, it was under no burden to produce
evidence showing an issue of genuine fact unless the
defendant “wholly extinguishe[d] the possibility that the
events forming the basis of his opponent’s claims oc-
curred.” Crawford, 647 F.3d at 648. We characterized this

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text