Hollis v. High Desert State Prison
Filing
118
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 07/07/11 recommending that plaintiff's 03/04/11 motion for summary judgment 107 be denied. MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 107 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS,
11
12
Plaintiff,
No. 2:08-cv-2810 GEB KJN P
vs.
13
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. This action is proceeding
17
on plaintiff’s claim alleging defendants Koller, Plainer, Ingwerson, and Audette improperly
18
handcuffed plaintiff, and denied plaintiff drinking water, access to the bathroom and orthopedic
19
boots on November 9, 2007, and on plaintiff’s claim alleging defendants Prater, Shaver and
20
Koenig denied plaintiff a prescribed pillow and mattress from June 2008 to August 11, 2008.
21
(Dkt. No. 89.) On March 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on these
22
claims. As explained more fully below, the court recommends that the motion for summary
23
judgment be denied.
24
I. Motion for Summary Judgment
25
26
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no genuine
issues of material facts. Defendants filed an opposition, and plaintiff filed a reply.
1
1
A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment
2
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that the standard set
3
forth in Federal Rule of Civil procedure 56 is met. “The court shall grant summary judgment if
4
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
5
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).1
6
Under summary judgment practice, the moving party always bears
the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for 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.
7
8
9
10
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting then-numbered Fed. R. Civ. P.
11
56(c).) “Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need
12
only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” Nursing
13
Home Pension Fund, Local 144 v. Oracle Corp. (In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig.), 627 F.3d 376,
14
387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory
15
Committee’s Notes to 2010 amendments (recognizing that “a party who does not have the trial
16
burden of production may rely on a showing that a party who does have the trial burden cannot
17
produce admissible evidence to carry its burden as to the fact”). Indeed, summary judgment
18
should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to
19
make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case,
20
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
21
“[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case
22
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323.
23
Consequently, if the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then
24
25
26
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 was revised and rearranged effective December 10,
2010. However, as stated in the Advisory Committee Notes to the 2010 Amendments to Rule
56, “[t]he standard for granting summary judgment remains unchanged.”
2
1
shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually exists.
2
See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting
3
to establish the existence of such a factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the
4
allegations or denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the
5
form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material in support of its contention that such a
6
dispute exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party
7
must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome
8
of the suit under the governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
9
(1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.
10
1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
11
return a verdict for the nonmoving party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433,
12
1436 (9th Cir. 1987).
13
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party
14
need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
15
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing
16
versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630. Thus, the “purpose of summary
17
judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a
18
genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) Advisory
19
Committee’s Note on 1963 amendments).
20
In resolving a summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings,
21
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
22
any. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed. See Anderson,
23
477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the
24
court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
25
Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to
26
produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen
3
1
Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir.
2
1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply
3
show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken
4
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no
5
‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 (citation omitted).
6
By order filed November 16, 2009, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements
7
for opposing a motion brought pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
8
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d
9
409 (9th Cir. 1988).
10
B. Application
11
First, as noted by defendants, plaintiff has failed to file a statement of undisputed
12
facts as required by this court’s Local Rules. Local Rule 260(a). This failure is grounds for
13
denial of plaintiff’s motion. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 774-75 (9th Cir.
14
2002) (citing see Huey v. UPS, Inc., 165 F.3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir.1999) ( “[J]udges need not
15
paw over the files without assistance from the parties.”); Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845
16
F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir. 1988) (parties must designate specific facts and their location in the
17
record when relying on deposition testimony).) Resolution of the instant case is fact-intensive
18
and turns on facts concerning events that took place over more than a few days. Thus, failure to
19
file a statement of undisputed facts makes it difficult to parse plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s
20
motion should be denied based on his failure to comply with Local Rule 260(a).
21
Second, in his reply, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment
22
even in the face of plaintiff’s failure to provide a statement of undisputed facts based on Scott v.
23
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which
24
is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should
25
not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”)
26
However, the Scott case is distinguishable. In Scott, the court had benefit of a videotape of the
4
1
car chase at issue which clearly contradicted the plaintiff’s account. In the instant case, there is
2
no videotape or other uncontested or incontrovertible evidence of the incidents, making it
3
inappropriate to view the evidence in a light other than that most favorable to defendants as the
4
non-movants here. Plaintiff’s reliance on Scott is unavailing.
5
Third, plaintiff has failed to show he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
6
Because plaintiff is the moving party, all inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must
7
be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. In
8
support of his motion, plaintiff has provided his own declaration, as well as the declarations of
9
two other inmates who claim to have witnessed the events remaining at issue here. However,
10
defendants have provided their own declarations as to what transpired on the operative dates.
11
Each defendant denies any allegation of wrongdoing. In his reply, plaintiff challenges many of
12
these declarations as cumulative or misleading. However, these declarations are admissible to
13
defeat summary judgment. The fact that plaintiff’s declarations contain different facts than
14
defendants’ declarations demonstrates triable issues of fact that remain for resolution by the jury.
15
Because “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences
16
from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, . . . [t]he evidence of the non-movant is to
17
be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor” at the summary judgment
18
stage. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
19
For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be
20
denied.
21
II. Recommendation
22
23
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s March 4, 2011
motion for summary judgment (dkt no. 107) be denied.
24
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
25
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-
26
one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
5
1
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
2
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
3
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
4
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
5
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
6
DATED: July 7, 2011
7
8
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
holl2810.msj
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6
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?