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)

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-