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.

McCoy v. Eliason

United States District Court, D. Idaho

April 22, 2019

GARRETT M. McCOY, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ELIASON, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

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

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Dr. Eliason's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 33), Dr. Eliason's Motion to Strike (Dkt. 41), and Plaintiff Garrett McCoy's Motion to Amend (Dkt. 43). 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 Dr. Eliason's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike, and to DENY McCoy's Motion to Amend.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Garrett McCoy was previously incarcerated at the Ada County Jail. On October 10, 2017, McCoy filed the instant pro se Complaint alleging various violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 3. In his Complaint, McCoy alleges that while incarcerated in Ada County, Defendant Dr. Eliason violated his Eighth Amendment rights through deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Specifically, McCoy alleges that Dr. Eliason failed to prescribe him mental health medications after several brief evaluations. McCoy claims that he faced an imminent danger of causing physical harm to himself without the medications.

         On February 3, 2017, United States District Court Judge Lodge issued an Initial Review Order (1) permitting McCoy to proceed on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims and (2) terminating Ada County Health Services as a party to the case. Dkt. 14. Dr. Eliason moved for summary judgement on December 11, 2018. Dkt. 33.

         Instead of responding to Dr. Eliason's Motion for Summary Judgment, McCoy filed an Amended Complaint on February 13, 2019. Dkt. 39. On February 27, 2019, Dr. Eliason moved to Strike the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 41) for various reasons- including that McCoy had not sought the Court's permission to amend. In response, McCoy filed a document entitled “Permission to Amended Complaint/Dispute Facts/Cross Move for Summary Judgment Granted for the Plaintiff” on March 18, 2019. (sic) Dkt. 43. The Court will address each motion in turn.

         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 addressing the motion for summary judgement, the Court must discuss Dr. Eliason's pending Motion to Strike and McCoy's Motion for Permission to Amend.

         A. Motion to Strike and Permission to Amend

         After Dr. Eliason filed his motion for summary judgement on December 11, 2018, McCoy filed an Amended Complaint on February 13, 2019. Dkt. 39. Dr. Eliason filed a Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint on February 27, 2019. Dkt. 41. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that, once a responsive pleading has been served, a party may amend its pleading “only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). However, when-as in this case-a party files a motion to amend after the Court's case management deadline to amend has passed, district courts in the Ninth Circuit apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), followed by a Rule15(a) analysis. See Johnson ...


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.