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.

Nevil v. Young

United States District Court, D. Idaho

March 29, 2019





         There are two motions currently pending before the Court. First, is Defendants Rona Siegert (“Siegert”) and Warden Yordy's (“Yordy”) Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 61. Second is Defendant Murray Young's (“Young”) Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 62. 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.


         Plaintiff Derrell Nevil (“Nevil”) filed this case while he was a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (“IDOC”) and incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (“ISCI”). He brought several claims against a multitude of prison officials and private medical providers regarding their treatment of his broken jaw. Judge Edward J. Lodge granted Nevil in forma pauperis status and, after reviewing his Complaint, allowed Nevil to proceed on “(1) his Eighth Amendment, medical malpractice, and retaliation claims against Defendant Dr. Young, for damages and injunctive relief, and (2) his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Warden Yordy, for injunctive relief only.” Dkt. 13, at 21.

         Later, along with several other motions, Nevil filed an Amended Complaint. Judge Lodge also screened the Amended Complaint and held as follows:

Like the initial Complaint, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care, as well as a retaliation claim and a state-law medical malpractice claim, against Defendant Young. Additionally, the Amended Complaint also contains sufficient allegations for Plaintiff to proceed against Defendants Yordy and Siegert, both for injunctive relief and monetary damages, based on that medical care. Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that both of these Defendants were made aware of Plaintiff's ongoing medical treatment, and his dissatisfaction with that treatment, through the grievance process. At this early stage of the proceedings, this is sufficient to state plausible claims against these Defendants.

Dkt. 36, at 3.

         On July 9, 2018, Defendants Siegert and Yordy filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 61. On July 16, 2018, Defendant Young filed his Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 62. On July 30, 2018, Nevil filed a Motion for Extension of Time to respond to both motions for summary judgment. Dkt. 64. The Court subsequently granted Nevil's Motion, and extended his response deadline for both motions to January 14, 2019. That deadline has now passed without any response from Nevil.


         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).


         In this case, the Court need not reach the merits of Defendants' collective arguments in favor of summary judgment, as procedural grounds exist for granting both Motions.

         Defendants filed their respective motions on July 9 and July 16, 2018. On July 24, 2018, the Clerk of the Court sent Nevil its standard Notice to pro se litigants outlining what the Court required Nevil to do.[1] The Notice explained what a motion for summary judgment is, and how and when Nevil ...

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.