United States District Court, D. Oregon
H. Garry Coffee Creek Correctional Facility Plaintiff Pro Se
Sebastian Tapia LANE COUNTY COUNSEL Attorney for Defendants
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNANDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Gerome Garry, formerly an inmate the Lane County
Jail, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing
inadequate medical care following an injury and by refusing
to provide him breakfast when he was late for meal service.
Defendants move for summary judgment. I grant the motion.
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on October
8, 2017, while working in the kitchen at the Lane County
Jail, he slipped and fell on the floor. Sec. Am. Compl. at p.
3. He hit his head, was knocked unconscious, and had a
two-inch laceration. Id. He woke up in the hospital,
was taken back to jail, and placed in solitary confinement.
Id. at p. 4. He blacked out and fell two or three
more times during the next two weeks. Id. at p. 4.
He received no medical care despite repeated requests and
still suffers from headaches and loss of memory. Id.
He attributes the initial fall to unsafe conditions in the
kitchen and being forced to work long hours there.
Id. He alleges that Defendant Dan Buckwald is a
captain at the Lane County Jail who is responsible for the
Lane County Jail staff and allows this unconstitutional
treatment of inmates. Id.
also brings a separate claim alleging that on February 1,
2018, he woke up at 5:50 a.m. which was late for the 5:45
a.m. food service. Id. He asked to be fed but
Defendant J. Setliff refused to provide him a meal because he
was late. Id. He contends that Setliff's refusal
to give him breakfast violated the Eighth Amendment because
Plaintiff had not eaten since the previous afternoon and did
not receive a meal until 10:45 a.m. on February 1, 2018, a
span of about eighteen hours. Id.
relief, he asks the Court to investigate and change jail
policy, to order better training of jail staff and better
safety measures for inmates, and to award economic damages.
Id. at p. 5.
judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving
party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court
of the basis of its motion, and identifying those portions of
"'the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).
the moving party meets its initial burden of demonstrating
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden
then shifts to the nonmoving party to present "specific
facts" showing a "genuine issue for trial."
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924,
927-28 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and
designate facts showing an issue for trial. Bias v.
Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324).
substantive law governing a claim determines whether a fact
is material. Suever v. Connell, 579 F.3d 1047, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). The court draws inferences from the facts in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Earl v.
Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
factual context makes the nonmoving party's claim as to
the existence of a material issue of fact implausible, that
party must come forward with more persuasive evidence to
support his claim than would otherwise be necessary.