Bush v. Santa Clara County Department of Corrections et al

Filing 87

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/19/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2011)

1
2

*E-Filed 7/19/11*
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

JAMES ALAN BUSH,

12

Plaintiff,

13

No. C 09-01022 RS (PR)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.

14

DEAN WINSLOW, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/
17
18

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983 by a pro se state

19

prisoner. Defendants move for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. For

20

the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to all claims against all

21

defendants.

22
23
24

DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that

25

there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and [that] the moving party is entitled to

26

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may

27
28

No. C 09-01022 RS (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

2

(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a

3

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id.

4

The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those
portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a

6

genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

7

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must

8

affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving

9

party. On an issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

however, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to

11

support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. 325.

12

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond

13

the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, “set forth specific facts showing that

14

there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The court is only concerned with

15

disputes over material facts and “factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not

16

be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the district court to scour the

17

record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allen, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th

18

Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of identifying with reasonable particularity

19

the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make

20

this showing, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp v.

21

Catrett, 477 U.S. at 323.

22

A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment solely because the

23

opposing party has failed to file an opposition. See Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494–

24

95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed motion may be granted only after court determines that

25

there are no material issues of fact). This is so even if the failure to oppose violates a local

26

rule. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182–83 (9th Cir. 2003).

27
28

No. C 09-01022 RS (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2

1
2

II.

Claims
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Ed Flores, David Sepulveda, and Dean Winslow,

3

employees of Santa Clara County’s Department of Correction Main Jail, were deliberately

4

indifferent to his serious medical needs. More specifically, he alleges that Flores, as Chief of

5

Correction,1 and Sepulveda, a corrections officer, failed to ensure that plaintiff was provided

6

with, or continued to receive, constitutionally adequate medical care, as did Winslow, a

7

physician employed by Santa Clara County.

8
9

The motion for summary judgment is unopposed. A district court may not grant a
motion for summary judgment solely because the opposing party has failed to file an

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

opposition. Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494–95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed

11

motion may be granted only after court determines that there are no material issues of fact).

12

The Court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant’s

13

papers are themselves sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face reveal a

14

genuine issue of material fact. See United States v. Real Property at Incline Village, 47 F.3d

15

1511, 1520 (9th Cir. 1995) (local rule cannot mandate automatic entry of judgment for

16

moving party without consideration of whether motion and supporting papers satisfy Fed. R.

17

Civ. P. 56), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996);

18

Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (same).

19

The papers in support of the motion for summary judgment are evidence that the

20

defendants provided and did not impede the provision of constitutionally adequate medical

21

care to plaintiff. More specifically, the evidence shows that defendants were aware of

22

plaintiff’s medical needs and adequately addressed them with medical care acceptable under

23

the circumstances. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Toguchi v. Chung,

24

391 F.3d 1051, 1058–60 (9th Cir. 2004). The movants’ papers are sufficient to support the

25

motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly,

26
27
28

1

The current chief is John Hirokawa, Flores having retired in 2010. (MSJ at 1 n.1.)
No. C 09-01022 RS (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

3

1

defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

2

III.

Motion for a Stay

3

Plaintiff’s motion for a stay (Docket No. 86) is DENIED. Plaintiff has had more than

4

ample time to prepare an opposition. Defendants filed the motion for summary judgment on

5

February 22, 2011. Plaintiff, after being granted two extensions of time, had until June 15,

6

2011 to file an opposition.

7

Plaintiff alleges that another legal action pending in another court will address issues

8

raised in the instant matter. Plaintiff, however, failed to move for a stay on such grounds

9

until now. Plaintiff has had ample time both to prepare an opposition and to move for a stay

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

in a timely fashion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

11
12

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of all defendants as

13

to all claims. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants Ed Flores, David

14

Sepulveda, and Dean Winslow as to all claims, terminate Docket Nos. 51 and 86, and close

15

the file.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 19, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 09-01022 RS (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4