United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
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.
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
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
Dkt. 36, at 3.
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.
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.
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.
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. The Notice explained what a motion for
summary judgment is, and how and when Nevil ...