United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge
Michael Handleson, a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho
Department of Correction (IDOC) and currently incarcerated at
Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI), is proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Handleson also
asserts unidentified state law claims.
pending before the Court is Defendants Young, Paulson, McCall
and Gelok's Motion for Summary Judgment. Having fully
reviewed Mr. Handleson's Response and the record, the
Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the briefs and record such that oral argument is
unnecessary. See D. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1.
Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order granting
Defendants' Motion and dismissing this case without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Handleson filed the Complaint in this action on May 19, 2017
against various employees or former employees of Corizon,
Inc., the private entity providing medical treatment to Idaho
inmates under contract with the IDOC. He alleged (1) civil
rights claims for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) claims under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.,
and (3) generic claims under Idaho state law, characterized
in the Court's Initial Review Order as “related
state-law negligence or medical malpractice claims.”
Dkt. 1, at 1, Dkt. 3-1 at 9. The Court reviewed the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, allowing
Plaintiff to proceed on his § 1983 and state law claims
against Defendants Dr. Murray Young, P.A. William Paulson,
R.N. Tammy McCall, and N.P. Christian Gelok. Dkt. 7 at 18.
four remaining defendants filed their Answer on February 26,
2018. Dkt. 14. The Court then issued a scheduling Order on
June 29, 2018, outlining deadlines for amendment of the
complaint, discovery, subpoena requests, depositions, and
dispositive motions. Dkt. 20. Shortly thereafter, the Parties
proceeded to file several motions, which are now pending
before this Court. On July 24, 2018, Defendants filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that Mr. Handleson
had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that
certain of his claims were time-barred. Dkt. 24. Mr.
Handleson filed an untimely Response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment on September 12, 2018 along with a Motion to
Reconsider Corizon Medical Service LLC as a Defendant. Dkts.
27, 28. Defendants then filed a Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Response as untimely. Dkt. 31. Finally, on
October 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed his second Motion for
Appointment of Counsel in this case. Dkt. 32. The Court
previously denied Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of
Counsel on December 22, 2017. See Dkt. 7.
reasons that follow the Court will grant Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment, and deny the remaining motions
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Standard of Law Governing Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that,
as to any claim or defense, “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). One
of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule
“is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported
claims or defenses.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). It is not “a disfavored
procedural shortcut, ” but is instead the
“principal tool[ ] by which factually insufficient
claims or defenses [can] be isolated and prevented from going
to trial with the attendant unwarranted consumption of public
and private resources.” Id. at 327.
mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the
parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment ....” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
Rather, there must be no genuine dispute as to any material
fact in order for a case to survive summary judgment.
Material facts are those “that might affect the outcome
of the suit.” Id. at 248. “Disputes over
irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of
summary judgment.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac.
Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.
moving party is entitled to summary judgment if that party
shows that each material fact is beyond dispute. To do so, a
party may cite to material in the record, or show that the
adverse party is unable to produce admissible evidence to
support the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A-B). The Court must
consider “the cited materials, ” but it may also
consider “other materials in the record.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). The Court is “not required to
comb through the record to find some reason to deny a motion
for summary judgment.” Carmen v. San Francisco
Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001).
Instead, the “party opposing summary judgment must
direct [the Court's] attention to specific triable
facts.” S. California Gas Co. v. City of Santa
Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2003).
moving party meets its initial responsibility, then the
burden shifts to the opposing party to establish that a
genuine dispute as to any material fact actually does exist.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is
insufficient. Rather, “there must be evidence on which
[a] jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving
party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
used to support or dispute a fact must be “presented in
a form that would be admissible in evidence.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). Affidavits or declarations submitted
in support of or in opposition to a motion “must be
made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be
admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or
declarant is competent to testify on the matters
stated.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4).
party “fails to properly support an assertion of fact
or fails to properly address another party's assertion of
fact, ” the Court may consider that fact to be
undisputed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). The Court may grant
summary judgment for the moving party “if the motion
and supporting materials-including the facts ...