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.

Bean v. Sazie

United States District Court, D. Oregon

July 17, 2017

LISA BEAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH SUZANNE SAZIE, et al., Defendants.

          Lisa Bean, pro se.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Robert E. Sullivan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Rachel E. Bertoni, Assistant Attorney General, Of Attorneys for Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Michael H. Simon United States District Judge

         From May 2010 through April 2012, Plaintiff was an inmate in the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) operated by the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”). Plaintiff originally was represented by counsel when she filed this lawsuit against several employees of the ODOC. In her complaint, Plaintiff asserts two claims. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by subjecting her to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when they denied and delayed providing Plaintiff with necessary medical treatment. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for common law medical negligence.

         On June 22, 2016, Defendants moved for summary judgment and to stay discovery. Plaintiff's counsel requested an extension of time to respond, explaining that Plaintiff was in the process of obtaining expert reports. Plaintiff added, “[i]f that does not materialize, Plaintiff will have to explore other options.” ECF 59 at 2. The Court granted Plaintiff's request and allowed Plaintiff to have until January 11, 2017, to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel moved to withdraw, stating only that Plaintiff has terminated her counsel's attorney-client relationship. On November 4, 2016, the Court allowed Plaintiff's counsel to withdraw and gave Plaintiff until April 4, 2017, to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff neither responded to Defendants' motion for summary judgment nor requested any further extensions of time. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and Defendants' motion to stay discovery is denied as moot.

         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 has 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 Plaintiff'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).

         A court may not grant summary judgment by default. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2013). When a 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). By amendment passed in 2010, this rule incorporated the “deemed admitted” practice of many courts-when a party fails to respond to an asserted fact, that fact may be “deemed admitted” (i.e., accepted as undisputed). Heinemann, 731 F.3d at 917. Accepting a proposed fact as undisputed, however, does not mean that summary judgment automatically follows. After considering the facts that the court has found undisputed for want of a response and those that cannot genuinely be disputed based on the movant's evidence, a court must still determine the appropriate legal consequences. Id.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff was incarcerated at CCCF until April 26, 2012. Sometime after Plaintiff was released, she was diagnosed by her private health care providers with a bacterial infection and a hernia with possibly enlarged organs. Plaintiff's ...


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.