United States District Court, D. Oregon
BRUCE M. JONES, II, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
J. BROWN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion
(#24-1) for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss (#24-2) under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). For the reasons that follow, the Court
GRANTS Defendants' Motions.
Bruce M. Jones, II, an inmate at Federal Correctional
Institution Sheridan (FCI Sheridan) during the relevant
period, brings this civil-rights action pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). In his Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff
asserts claims against Defendants for violation of
Plaintiff's right under the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment related to his health and safety and for allegedly
failing to provide him with adequate medical care. Plaintiff
also asserts claims against Defendants pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence and failure to provide
adequate medical care.
alleges another inmate hit him in the back of the head with a
hammer on June 25, 2015, while both Plaintiff and the other
inmate were at their work assignments at FCI Sheridan.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to protect him from the
attack and failed to provide him with adequate medical care
after the attack.
November 6, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment and to Dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims.
November 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled Response
in Opposition to Defendants' Motions. In that document
Plaintiff did not provide a substantive response to
Defendants' arguments and instead sought an extension of
time to file a response to Defendants' Motions.
Plaintiff, however, did not include a certification of
conferral as required by Local Rule 7.1 or the position of
opposing counsel. As a result, the Court entered an Order on
December 1, 2017, striking Plaintiff's Response and
directing Plaintiff to file a motion for extension of time
that included a Local Rule 7.1 conferral statement and the
position of opposing counsel no later than December 4, 2017.
did not file a motion for extension of time or any other
response to Defendants' Motions. The Court took this
matter under advisement on December 4, 2017.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
move for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's First Claim
against Defendants for violation of the Eighth Amendment on
the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Washington Mut. Ins.
v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th
Cir. 2011). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
moving party must show the absence of a genuine dispute as to
a material fact. Emeldi v. Univ. of Or., 673 F.3d
1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2012). In response to a
properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving
party must go beyond the pleadings and point to
"specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine
issues for trial." In re Oracle Corp. Sec.
Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010)
"This burden is not a light one. . . . The non-moving
party must do more than show there is some 'metaphysical
doubt' as to the material facts at issue."
Id. (citation omitted).
dispute as to a material fact is genuine "if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party." Villiarimo v.
Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061
(9th Cir. 2002)(quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The court must
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party. Sluimer v. Verity, Inc., 606 F.3d 584, 587
(9th Cir. 2010). "Summary judgment cannot be
granted where contrary inferences may be drawn from the
evidence as to material issues." Easter v. Am. W.
Fin., 381 F.3d 948, 957 (9th Cir.
2004)(citing Sherman Oaks Med. Arts Ctr., Ltd. v.
Carpenters Local Union No. 1936, 680 F.2d 594, 598
(9th Cir. 1982)).
non-movant's bald assertions or a mere scintilla of
evidence in his favor are both insufficient to withstand
summary judgment." F.T.C. v. Stefanchik, 559
F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir. 2009)(citation omitted).
When the nonmoving party's claims are factually
implausible, that party must "come forward with more
persuasive evidence than otherwise would be necessary."
LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1137