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.

Simmons v. Oregon Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. Oregon

August 25, 2014

RAMSEY D. SIMMONS, Plaintiff,
v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MAX WILLIAMS, Director of the DOC, MICHAEL GOWER, Asst. Director, LEONARD WILLIAMSON, Inspector General, MARK NOOTH, Superintendent at SRCI, SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, JAMIE MILLER, Asst. Super at SRCI, P. STUART, Admin Staff, BILL DOMAN, Transitional Manager, A. HANNON, Security Manager SRCI, J. EASTWOOD, Captain at SRCI, R. REAL, Captain at SRCI, R. GOLDSTON, Lieutenant at SRCI, MR. WALLACE, Sgt. at SRCI, J. HERRERA, Correction Officer at SRCI, MR. DOHRTY, Corr. Officer, P. GARCIA, Corr. Officer SRCI, E. CARBAJAL, Corr. Officer SRCI, MR. SUNQUEST, Sgt. at SRCI, MS. M. BRANSCOMB, Councilor SRCI, MR. A. ARNOLD, Corr. Officer SRCI, and TERESA HICKS, Grievance Coordinator, Defendants.

Ramsey D. Simmons, Yamhill, OR, Plaintiff pro se.

Michael R. Washington, Oregon Department of Justice, Trial Division, Salem, OR, Of Attorneys for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Ramsey D. Simmons ("Plaintiff") was in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") at the Snake River Correctional Institute ("SRCI") from July 1, 2009, to February 15, 2012. He filed suit on December 12, 2011, asserting 11 claims under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

On April 25, 2014, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Defendant ODOC was immune from suit and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Plaintiff failed to respond by the June 2 deadline, and the Court, on its own motion, extended the deadline to July 18. Despite this extension, Plaintiff still failed to respond. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

STANDARDS

A party is entitled to summary judgment 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 moving party bears the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). Although "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge... ruling on a motion for summary judgment, " the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-movant's] position [is] insufficient...." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 255 (1986). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

When an adverse party fails to respond to a fact asserted by the movant, a court may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;
(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;
(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials-including the facts considered undisputed-show that the movant is entitled to it; or
(4) issue any other appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). This rule was amended in 2010 to incorporate the "deemed admitted" practice of many courts: Where a party fails to respond to an asserted fact, that fact may be considered as undisputed, or "deemed admitted." Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2013). Considering a fact as undisputed, however, does not entitle the movant to automatic summary judgment. A court must still determine, considering the facts the court has found undisputed, the legal ...


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.