United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant Gentilia Brewer's Motion
for Summary Judgement. Dkt. 24. Having reviewed the record
and the 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 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 Brewer's Motion.
Markus Archuleta was previously incarcerated at the Idaho
State Corrections Center in Boise, Idaho. On March 17, 2017,
Archuleta filed a pro se Complaint alleging various
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
February 13, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Candy Dale
issued an Initial Review Order permitting Archuleta to
proceed on his Eighth Amendment claims if he stated claims
against appropriate defendants. Dkt. 8. Accordingly,
Archuleta filed the instant Amended pro se complaint
on March 17, 2017. Dkt. 9.
Dale subsequently transferred this case to the undersigned as
not all parties had consented to the jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 10. Thereafter, the Court
issued a successive review order outlining that Archuleta
could proceed with his Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendants Jeremy Clark and Nurse “Jen” (i.e.
Complaint, Archuleta alleges that while incarcerated at the
Idaho State Correction Center, Brewer violated his Eighth
Amendment rights through deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. Specifically, Archuleta alleges that
Brewer terminated one of his mental health medications,
Effexor, and that he was in danger of causing physical harm
to himself without the medications. Brewer moved for summary
judgement on January 25, 2019. Archuleta failed to respond.
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 does not need to reach the merits of
Brewer's Motion for Summary Judgement, as procedural
grounds exist for granting her Motion.
filed her Motion for Summary Judgement on January 25, 2019.
On February 26, 2019, the Clerk of the Court sent Archuleta
its standard Notice to pro se litigants outlining
what the Court required him to do. The Notice explained what a
motion for summary judgement is, and how and when Archuleta
needed to respond to the motion. The Notice also included the
You are warned that if you do not file your
response opposing the motion within 21 days (or such other
time period set by the Court), the Court will consider the
facts provided by the moving party as undisputed and
may grant the motion based on the record
before it, or it may dismiss your entire case for
failure to prosecute ...