Madrid v. Maricopa, County of et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 52 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 54 and 56 Defendants' two Motions for Ruling. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this lawsuit. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/31/12.(TLJ)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Anna Madrid, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Maricopa County et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-10-2031-PHX-GMS ORDER 15 16 17 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52), 18 and two Motions for Ruling on the summary judgment motion. (Docs. 54, 56). For the 19 reasons given below, the motions are granted. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff’s claims arise from her experience as a pre-trial detainee in the Maricopa 22 County Jail system from May 12 to May 28, 2009. Before she entered custody, she had 23 sustained a severe injury to her right arm, and she claims that jail officials and medical staff 24 failed to treat her injury properly. Her complaint contained a cause of action pursuant to 25 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a violation of her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and 26 also contained a number of state law claims, including negligence, gross negligence, medial 27 malpractice, and failure to provide medical care. (Doc. 1-1, Ex. A). The case was removed 28 to federal court on September 22, 2010. (Doc. 1). 1 On April 27, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion 2 to Dismiss. (Doc. 14). Discovery and settlement negotiations, took place over the next eight 3 months. (Docs. 40–49). On January 26, Plaintiff’s attorney moved to withdraw from the case 4 because Plaintiff had become non-responsive and non-communicative; the Court granted 5 leave to withdraw the next day. (Docs. 50, 51). Defendants moved for summary judgment 6 on February 14, 2012. (Doc. 52). Despite being issued a warning that failure to respond 7 would be considered as consent to the granting of the motion, Plaintiff has not filed a 8 responsive memorandum. (Doc. 55). 9 10 DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard 11 Under the Local Rules, a party must file a responsive memorandum within fourteen 12 days of a motion’s filing. LRCiv. 7.2(c). Failure to respond “may be deemed a consent to the 13 denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 14 7.2(i). “Although [the Court] construe[s] pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are 15 bound by the rules of procedure. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 16 King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 II. Analysis 18 Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. When she first 19 failed to meet the deadline, she was offered additional time, and was explicitly informed by 20 the Court that failing to respond would be considered consent to the granting of the motion. 21 (Doc. 55). The Court has examined the motion and finds that it has merit—Plaintiff has failed 22 to rebut any of Defendants’ evidence that the prison medical staff were not deliberately 23 indifferent to her serious medical needs, and has not provided an expert witness on the 24 standard of care in support of her medical malpractice claims. Plaintiff’s failure to respond 25 is thereby construed as consent to granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and 26 the Court will “dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). Defendant’s motion is 27 granted and the case is dismissed. 28 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: -2- 1 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52) is granted. 2 2. Defendants’ two Motions for Ruling (Docs. 54, 56) are granted. 3 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this lawsuit. 4 DATED this 31st day of May, 2012. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?