United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
January 12, 2017, Goodrick filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt.
16. The Court did not subsequently review this Amended
Complaint. Discovery then commenced.
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.
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.
October 11, 2018, Goodrick responded to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment with a Motion for Summary
Judgment of his own. Dkt. 60.
November 15, 2018, Goodrick renewed his motion for
appointment of counsel (Dkt. 63) which the Court has
previously denied twice. Dkt. 8; Dkt. 58.
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.
reaching the substance of Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment, the Court must address numerous procedural matters,
as well as Goodrick's pending Motions.
Williams v. King
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 ...