United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant Linda Svancara's Motion for
Summary Judgment. Dkt. 20. Plaintiff Nicholas Longee has also
filed a Motion to Compel (Dkt. 23) and a Motion for Hearing
(Dkt. 22) regarding the Motion to Compel.
Motions are fully briefed and ripe for the Court's
review. Having fully reviewed the record herein, the Court
finds the parties have adequately presented the facts and
legal arguments in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the
interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly
aided by oral argument, the Court decides the Motions without
oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DENIES Longee's Motion to Compel and Motion for Hearing
and GRANTS Svancara's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Nicholas Longee is an inmate incarcerated by the Idaho
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) at the Idaho
State Correctional Center (“ISCC”). Relevant to
this case is the fact that Longee has a prescription for
paroxetine-brand name “Paxil”-to treat his
anxiety. Longee takes Paxil once a day.
is a Licensed Practical Nurse (“LPN”) employed by
Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”). Corizon is a
private corporation under contract to provide medical and
mental health care to inmates at IDOC facilities. One of
Svancara's responsibilities is to administer “pill
calls.” Pill calls are predetermined times at which
medications are administered to inmates in particular cell
blocks. The purpose of pill calls is to ensure the orderly
and secure administration of all medications. Inmates are
aware of when pill calls occur and must be present in order
to receive their medication(s). The “bedtime”
pill call, which corresponds with the evening meal at
approximately four or five o'clock in the evening, is the
last pill call of the day.
December 7, 2016,  correctional officers announced bedtime
pill call. Longee did not appear and consequently did not
receive his Paxil medication. Later than evening, Longee
arrived at the prison medical clinic requesting his
medication. According to Longee's Complaint,
unidentified medical staff at the clinic told him that
Svancara said he was “burnt” and that he would
not receive his medication that day. This is the basis for
Longee's claim against Svancara.
procedural standpoint, the Court notes that Longee's
original Complaint included numerous other claims against
multiple other defendants. In its initial review order, the
Court dismissed all defendants except Svancara. Dkt. 11. At
that time, the Court also dismissed all of Longee's
claims except for a First Amendment Retaliation Claim against
Svancara. Id. Svancara now moves for summary
judgment on this sole remaining claim.
judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). This Court's role at summary judgment is not
“to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436,
441 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). In considering a
motion for summary judgment, this Court must “view
the facts in the non-moving party's favor.”
defeat a motion for summary judgment, the respondent need
only present evidence upon which “a reasonable juror
drawing all inferences in favor of the respondent could
return a verdict in [his or her] favor.” Id.
(citation omitted). Accordingly, this Court must enter
summary judgment if a party “fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The respondent cannot
simply rely on an unsworn affidavit or the pleadings to
defeat a motion for summary judgment; rather the respondent
must set forth the “specific facts, ” supported
by evidence, with “reasonable particularity” that
precludes summary judgment. Far Out Productions, Inc. v.
Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 997 (9th Cir. 2001).
threshold matter, the Court will briefly address Longee's
Motion to Compel and ...