Garland v. Knowles et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER for Clerk of the Court to Enter Judgment accordingly signed by District Judge David C. Bury on 5/25/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Shaun Darnell Garland,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Warden M. Knowles, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:07-CV-750-DCB
ORDER

14
On December 17, 2010, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
15
Defendants argue that the case is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
16
administrative remedies regarding his claim that he was assaulted by Defendant Borbon, who
17
slammed Plaintiff’s arm in his cell door. Defendants argue that in any event there is no
18
constitutional violation because the injury was de minimis.
19
On December 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to modify the discovery
20
deadline, which the Court denied. On December 21, 2010, the Court informed the Plaintiff
21
that the Motion for Summary Judgment is dispositive of his case, Fed. R. Civ. P.56(c),(e)(3),
22
and that he must file a Response or be subject to having the motion summarily granted, Calif.
23
LR Civ.78-230. On January 6, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s Settlement
24
Letter, which to some extent addresses the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. He
25
admits he did not request medical treatment for his arm because he did not believe he would
26
get it, but his arm was bruised and hurt for about a month. He explains that documents
27
showing he filed a grievance with the warden regarding the cell-door incident were taken
28

1

from his belongings while he was away at a settlement conference in another case. He

2

asserts that the warden’s log should reflect receipt of his grievance.

3

The warden’s log was the subject of a subpoena request made by the Plaintiff in

4

November. On December 20, 2010, the Court explained that the warden’s log may be

5

discoverable, without a subpoena, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.34(a). The Court also had the

6

Clerk of the Court issue the Plaintiff blank subpoenas, and explained that he was responsible

7

for completing them and returning them to the Clerk of the Court for service. (Order (Doc.

8

29)). There is no evidence the blank subpoenas were ever completed by the Plaintiff and

9

returned to the Clerk of the Court.

10

On March 29, 2011, when the Court denied Plaintiff’s Exparte Motion to Modify the

11

Discovery Deadline, it gave the Plaintiff another opportunity to file a Response to the Motion

12

for Summary Judgment. Again, the Court warned the Plaintiff that failing to file a Response

13

or failing to show good cause why a Response could not be filed would result in the Motion

14

for Summary Judgment being summarily granted. The docket reflects the Plaintiff has not

15

filed a Response.

16

The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, the Motion for Summary

17

Judgment, and the January 6, 2011, Response to Defendants’ Settlement Letter. The Court

18

finds no reason to not summarily grant the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

19

pursuant to California’s LR Civ. 78-230. The evidence before the Court reflects that the

20

Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding any grievance related to his arm

21

being slammed in the cell door and, in any event, injury to his arm was de minimis.

22

Accordingly,

23

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 28) is GRANTED.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

25
26

accordingly.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2011.

27
28
-2-