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.

Garry v. Buckwald

United States District Court, D. Oregon

September 14, 2018

GEROME GARRY, Plaintiff,
v.
DAN BUCKWALD, LANE COUNTY JAIL, DEPUTY J. SETLIFF, Defendants.

          Gerome H. Garry Coffee Creek Correctional Facility Plaintiff Pro Se

          Sebastian Tapia LANE COUNTY COUNSEL Attorney for Defendants

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pro se 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.

         BACKGROUND

         In his 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         For 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.

         STANDARDS

         Summary 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)).

         Once 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).

         The 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 Cir. 2011).

         If the 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. Mats ...


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.