Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Longee v. Svancara

United States District Court, D. Idaho

June 19, 2018





         Pending 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.

         The 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.


         Plaintiff 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.

         Svancara 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.

         On December 7, 2016, [1] 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.[2] 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.

         From a 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.


         Summary 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.” Id.

         To 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).

         IV. ANALYSIS

         As a threshold matter, the Court will briefly address Longee's Motion to Compel and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.