United States District Court, D. Idaho
GARRETT M. McCOY, Plaintiff,
DR. ELIASON, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye U.S. District Court Judge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Motion to Strike and Permission to Amend
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
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 ...