Evans v. Ryan et al

Filing 269

ORDER denying 252 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all deadlines respective to trial remain in place. [See attached order for additional information.] Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 2/22/2019. (RMW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ryan Evans, No. CV-17-00252-PHX-JAT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Charles Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 At issue is Defendant Smith-Whitson’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Leave to File a 15 16 Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 252). The Court now rules on this Motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff Ryan Evans is an inmate in the custody of the Arizona Department of 19 Corrections. Defendant is the Deputy Warden of the Florence, North Unit at the Arizona 20 State Prison Complex. On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 21 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs 22 when she ordered that Plaintiff be moved to tent housing “in direct defiance and 23 contravention of the medical orders of Dr. Christopher Johnson[.]”1 (Doc. 1 at 14). After 24 determining that Plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, the 25 Court required Defendant to answer. (Doc. 5 at 7, 10). Defendant denied any wrongdoing 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff’s Complaint also asserted a state law negligence claim. (Doc. 1 at 6). However, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated to the dismissal of the negligence claim against Defendant on May 9, 2018. (See Doc. 206). In an Order dated May 14, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation, and dismissed the negligence claim against Defendant from Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. (See Doc. 207). 1 in her Answer. (Doc. 24). The Court’s Scheduling Order set the dispositive motion deadline 2 as January 8, 2018. (Doc. 28 at 3). After extending the dispositive motion deadline on three 3 prior occasions, (see Docs. 84, 175, 198), the Court ultimately extended the dispositive 4 motion deadline to June 6, 2018, (Doc. 205). 5 On October 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on his 6 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant. (Doc. 90). 7 Defendant’s motion alleged that Defendant was aware of the November 15, 2016 Special 8 Needs Order (“SNO”) signed by Dr. Johnson prohibiting Plaintiff’s placement in tent 9 housing based on an email exchange between Defendant, Lieutenant Williams, and Nurse 10 Williams in which Defendant was “advised of [] Plaintiff’s serious medical condition and 11 his medical need for climate controlled housing[.]” (Id. at 4). Upon Defendant’s motion, 12 (see Doc. 105), the Court extended the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s 13 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to December 15, 2017, (Doc. 107). Thereafter, 14 Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross- 15 Motion for Summary Judgment on December 15, 2017 in which Defendant denied having 16 any knowledge of the issuance of the SNO for no tent housing. (Doc. 117 at 11). Defendant 17 also stated that she had no reason to believe Plaintiff required a medical accommodation 18 and that she was not involved in the decision to transfer Plaintiff to tent housing. (Id. at 19 12–13). 20 In an Order dated May 1, 2018, the Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for 21 summary judgment, finding that the evidence “supports the inference that Defendant was 22 aware of the November 15, 2016 SNO and that she was involved in its termination.” 23 (Doc. 201 at 15). The Court also found that there was no “evidence in the record explaining 24 why the November 15, 2016 SNO said Plaintiff’s ‘treatment was discontinued’ that very 25 same day, when he was still being treated for the clavicle problem and awaiting further 26 surgery.” (Id.). 27 On February 12, 2019, Defendant filed the motion at issue. (Doc. 252). Should the 28 Court decide to grant Defendant’s Motion, Defendant requests that the trial date be vacated -2- 1 and reset, if necessary, following the Court’s ruling on her second proposed motion for 2 summary judgment. (Id. at 4). 3 II. ANALYSIS 4 Even though the Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for March 20, 2019 and trial 5 is set to begin on April 1, 2019, (Doc. 244), Defendant asks that the Court grant her leave 6 to file a second motion for summary judgment based on “recently discovered evidence.” 7 (Doc. 252 at 1). However, the dispositive motion deadline—set forth in the Scheduling 8 Order and in successive orders—expired over eight months ago on June 6, 2018. (See Docs. 9 28, 84, 175, 198, 205). 10 The Court declines to exercise its discretion to permit Defendant to file a second 11 summary judgment motion this close to the April 1, 2019 trial date and March 20, 2019 12 Final Pretrial Conference. Allowing Defendant to circumvent the dispositive motion 13 deadline this late in the proceedings threatens the sort of disruption that Rule 16 was 14 designed to prevent. Moreover, consecutive filings strain judicial resources. Defendant 15 contends that this second summary judgment motion will serve to “avoid the time and 16 expense in having the parties try an issue” that “will invariably have to be addressed by the 17 Court on a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter law.” (Doc. 252 at 3). Nevertheless, 18 the judicial resources that would be expended to rule on Defendant’s second proposed 19 summary judgment motion will likely exceed the resources needed to try this case. 20 Furthermore, Defendant failed to demonstrate the diligence necessary to meet 21 Rule 16’s “good cause” requirement. Under Rule 16, a scheduling order “may be modified 22 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Under the 23 “good cause” standard, “[t]he pretrial schedule may be modified if it cannot reasonably be 24 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. If the party seeking the 25 modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not 26 be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal 27 quotation marks and citation omitted). 28 To demonstrate “good cause,” Defendant asserts that she was unable to locate Nurse -3- 1 Williams—the individual who documented the November 15, 2016 SNO—prior to filing 2 her first Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id. at 2). While preparing her draft of the Joint 3 Proposed Final Pretrial Order, however, Defendant located Nurse Williams. (Id. at 2–3). 4 According to Defendant, Nurse Williams advised defense counsel that Plaintiff’s 5 November 15, 2016 SNO was discontinued that same day because it was not approved by 6 Dr. Johnson. (Id. at 3). Defendant’s Motion then continues: “[u]ndersigned counsel has 7 spoken with Dr. Johnson who has confirmed that he would not approve a ‘no tent’ housing 8 SNO for Plaintiff for the clavicle condition he had in November 2016[,]” and that “he 9 would never discontinue a medically necessary SNO at the request of security staff such as 10 Defendant Smith-Whitson.” (Id.). 11 In support of her second Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant provides 12 declarations from both Nurse Williams and Dr. Johnson. (Id.; see Doc. 255-1 at 6–10, 49– 13 53). Nurse William’s Declaration is not dated. (See Doc. 255-1 at 53). Even if it were dated, 14 however, Defendant still fails to demonstrate good cause. Defendant’s Motion insinuates 15 that finally locating Nurse Williams when preparing for trial led to new insight from 16 Dr. Johnson that “Plaintiff did not have a valid SNO for ‘no tent’ housing on 17 November 15, 2016, and that Defendant Smith-Whitson had no involvement with 18 Dr. Johnson’s decision not to issue such an SNO to Plaintiff.” (Id.). Nevertheless, 19 Dr. Johnson’s Declaration was executed on February 1, 2018. (See Doc. 255-1 at 10). 20 Although Defendant claims that her Motion is based on “newly discovered evidence,” 21 (Doc. 252 at 1), by February 1, 2018 Defendant was aware that Dr. Johnson did not sign 22 off on the SNO written by Nurse Williams because Dr. Johnson believed there was no 23 medical reason for Plaintiff to be issued an SNO for “no tent” housing. (See Doc. 255-1 at 24 9–10). From February 1, 2018, Defendant had more than four months to request leave to 25 file a second motion for summary judgment prior to the expiration of the extended 26 dispositive motion deadline of June 6, 2018. (See Docs. 28, 84, 175, 198, 205). Defendant’s 27 failure to do so demonstrates a lack of diligence. See Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. 28 Accordingly, the Court declines to grant Defendant’s Motion as there is not “good cause” -4- 1 to modify the Scheduling Order. 2 III. CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, 4 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Smith-Whitson’s Motion for Leave to File a 5 Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 252) is DENIED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all deadlines respective to trial remain in place. 7 Dated this 22nd day of February, 2019. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5-

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?