Cervantes v. Magat et al
Filing
13
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/30/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2013)
1
2
*E-filed 1/30/13*
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
HENRY CERVANTES,
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
13
14
No. C 12-2489 RS (PR)
DR. MARIA LUISITA MAGAT, et al.,
Defendants.
15
/
16
17
INTRODUCTION
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 12-2489 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 12-2489 RS (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2
1
2
II.
Claims
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Dr. Magat, Corizon Health Inc., and Matthew Cate
provided, or were responsible for providing, constitutionally inadequate medical care. The
4
motion for summary judgment is unopposed. A district court may not grant a motion for
5
summary judgment solely because the opposing party has failed to file an opposition.
6
Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494–95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed motion may be
7
granted only after court determines that there are no material issues of fact). The Court may,
8
however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant’s papers are
9
themselves sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
3
material fact. See United States v. Real Property at Incline Village, 47 F.3d 1511, 1520 (9th
11
Cir. 1995) (local rule cannot mandate automatic entry of judgment for moving party without
12
consideration of whether motion and supporting papers satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 56), rev’d on
13
other grounds sub nom. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996); Henry v. Gill
14
Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (same).
15
The papers in support of the motion for summary judgment are evidence that the
16
defendants provided and did not impede the provision of constitutionally adequate medical
17
care to plaintiff. More specifically, the evidence shows that defendants were aware of
18
plaintiff’s medical needs and adequately addressed them with medical care acceptable under
19
the circumstances. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Toguchi v. Chung,
20
391 F.3d 1051, 1058–60 (9th Cir. 2004). The movants’ papers are sufficient to support the
21
motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly,
22
defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of all defendants.1
23
CONCLUSION
24
25
1
Although Cate does not join this motion for summary judgment, he too is entitled to
summary judgment in his favor. His liability, according to plaintiff, is based on Magat’s and
26
Corizon’s alleged acts. If the claims against Magat and Corizon, Inc. fail, the claims against
27 Cate necessarily fail.
28
No. C 12-2489 RS (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
3
1
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of all defendants as
2
to all claims. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Magat, Corizon
3
Health, Inc., and Matthew Cate as to all claims, terminate Docket No. 12, and close the file.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 30, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. C 12-2489 RS (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
4
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?