United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant Grant Roberts' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31) as well as Defendants Randy Blades
and William Ybanez's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
32). Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds
that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented.
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 will
decide the Motions without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court finds good cause to GRANT both Motions.
Ray is an inmate incarcerated by the Idaho Department of
Corrections. On January 17, 2017, Ray filed the instant pro
se Prisoner Complaint alleging various violations of 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 5. In his Complaint Ray alleges that
on June 16, 2016, he was exercising with a lat cable pulldown
machine at the Idaho State Corrections Center when the cable
broke and the bar struck him on the top of the “head
and neck area.” Dkt. 5, at 8. Ray asserts that certain
defendants failed to maintain the equipment, and other
defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical care
following his accident.
24, 2017, this Court issued an Initial Review Order
permitting Ray to proceed against Defendants Warden Randy
Blades, Grant Roberts, Corporal Ybanez, “Nurse Reed,
” and “Nurse Mike” on claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. Dkt. 11.
Defendants who had been served and made appearances in this
case moved for summary judgment in May of 2018.
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 Prods., Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d
986, 997 (9th Cir. 2001).
case, the Court never reaches the merits of Defendants'
collective arguments in favor of summary judgment as
procedural grounds exists for granting the Motion.
filed their respective motions on May 8 and 9, 2018. On May
17, 2018, the Clerk of the Court sent Ray its standard Notice
to pro se litigants outlining what the Court required Ray to
do. The Notice explained what a motion for summary judgment
is, and how and when Ray needed to respond to the motions.
The Notice also included the following warning:
You are warned that if you do not file your
response opposing the motion within 21 days (or such other
time period set by the Court), the Court will consider the
facts provided by the moving party as undisputed and
may grant the motion based on the record
before it, or it may dismiss your entire case for
failure to prosecute ...