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.

Lucifer Archuleta v. Corizon (Mental Health)

United States District Court, D. Idaho

June 5, 2019





         Pending 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.


         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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.

         Judge 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. Gentilia Brewer).

         In his 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.[1] Archuleta failed to respond.


         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 does not need to reach the merits of Brewer's Motion for Summary Judgement, as procedural grounds exist for granting her Motion.

         Brewer 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.[2] 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 following warning:

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 ...

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.