United States District Court, D. Oregon
Bean, pro se.
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
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.
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.
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).
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
(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the
(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
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
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 ...