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.

Jones v. United States

United States District Court, D. Oregon

January 10, 2018

BRUCE M. JONES, II, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ANNA J. BROWN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         On November 6, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims.

         On 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

         Defendants 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 administrative remedies.

         I. Standard

         Summary 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).

         A 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)).

         "A 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 ...


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.