Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Goodrick v. Idaho Department of Correction

United States District Court, D. Idaho

March 26, 2019

DAN GOODRICK, Plaintiff,
v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, IDAHO BOARD OF CORRECTION, BRENT REINKE KEVIN KEMPF, JEFF ZMUDA, ASHLEY DOWELL, AL RAMIREZ, TIM MCKAY, MR. VALLEY, TERRI JO KIRTLEY, SUSAN WESSELS, DAINA DRAKE, LARISSA PFIEFER, MS. GOLDFUSS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          David C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is Defendants Alberto Ramirez, Ashley Dowell, Daina Drake, Larissa Pfeifer, and Amanda Goldfuss's (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 32. Also pending are four motions filed by Plaintiff Dan Goodrick: a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 45), a Motion to Stay (Dkt. 53), a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 60), and a Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 63).

         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 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY all of Goodrick's Motions.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         Dan Goodrick is a convicted sex offender and a chronic alcoholic who has been incarcerated by the Idaho Department of Correction since 1992. According to Goodrick, in the approximately 27 years of his incarceration, he has not received any sex offender or alcoholism treatment.

         Prison officials assert they have been unable to provide programming to Goodrick due to his continuous classification as a sexual predator, which warrants his placement in segregated housing where programming is sparse or unavailable. This classification as a sexual predator appears to come-in part-from a 2010 investigation that revealed Goodrick had obtained sexual favors from a much younger inmate with low mental capabilities in exchange for commissary items. As a result of this investigation, Goodrick was moved to administrative segregation at Idaho's Maximum Security Institution.

         Goodrick had his first parole hearing on March 7, 2016, at the conclusion of his 25-year fixed sentence. The parole commission denied Goodrick's request for parole, although Goodrick can reapply in 2021.

         According to Goodrick, he would like to engage in programming to aid his eligibility for parole in the future. Based on the duration of this case, it is not entirely clear what the current situation is-whether Goodrick is receiving programming or not- but it appears that, at least during most of this case, Goodrick received little to no programming.

         Goodrick alleges that Defendants' failure to provide him with treatment, programming, psychological evaluations, and regular risk assessments as a sex offender and alcoholic violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection, as well as his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

         B. Procedural Background

         On November 30, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued an Initial Review Order in this case (Dkt. 8) dismissing all of Goodrick's claims save one- an Eighth Amendment Claim based on a failure to receive mental health treatment. Goodrick subsequently filed “objections” to Judge Dale's Initial Review Order. Dkt. 14.

         On January 12, 2017, Goodrick filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 16. The Court did not subsequently review this Amended Complaint. Discovery then commenced.

         Following the completion of all discovery, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 32. Goodrick failed to respond to the Motion. Instead, Goodrick filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 45. Goodrick then filed a Motion to Stay proceedings pending the outcome of his state court post-conviction proceedings. Dkt. 53.

         On September 27, 2018, the Court issued an order on numerous pending motions. Dkt. 58. In that order, the Court noted that it would review Goodrick's objections to Judge Dale's Order as well as his pending Motion to Amend. The Court also gave Goodrick thirty (30) days to respond to Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment.

         On October 11, 2018, Goodrick responded to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment with a Motion for Summary Judgment of his own. Dkt. 60.

         On November 15, 2018, Goodrick renewed his motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 63) which the Court has previously denied twice. Dkt. 8; Dkt. 58.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         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). The 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, the 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, the 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).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Before reaching the substance of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court must address numerous procedural matters, as well as Goodrick's pending Motions.

         A. Williams v. King

         Goodrick's case was initially assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Dale for disposition. Dkt. 6. Goodrick subsequently consented to this assignment. Dkt. 7. As noted in her Initial Review Order (Dkt. 8), Judge Dale determined that Goodrick could proceed on a single Eighth Amendment Claim. Dkt. 8, at 6-7. Because Goodrick-the only party who had appeared in this action at that time-had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, Judge Dale's decision as to which claims survived and which did not was appropriate under this Court's then-existing precedent. See Kelly v. Rolland, No. 1:16-CV-00149-CWD, 2016 WL 3349222, at *1 (D. Idaho June 14, 2016) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1316 (9th Cir. 1998), and Walters v. Astrue, 2008 WL 618933 (N.D. Cal. 2008)). The Ninth Circuit has ...


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.