Silva v. Silva et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 08/24/2015. (eps )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ERNEST SIMON SILVA III,

) CIV. NO. 15-00172 LEK-BMK
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
vs.
)
)
JOHNATHAN SILVA, JOEY
)
KANEAKALAU,
)
)
)
Defendants.
______________________________ )
ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff’ “Motion For Summary
Judgment.”

Doc. No. 30.

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment based

solely on his unsupported allegations in the Complaint and
Defendants counter statements in the Answer.
27.

See Doc. Nos. 1 &

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he moving party always bears the initial responsibility

of informing the district court of the basis for its motion [for
summary judgment], 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.”

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323

(1986); Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001).
“When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden

of proof at trial, ‘it must come forward with evidence which
would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went
uncontroverted at trial.’”

C.A.R. Transp. Brokerate Co., Inc. v.

Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992)).

That

is, the moving party’s “showing must be sufficient for the court
to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than
for [him].”

Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th

Cir. 1986) (citation omitted); cf. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986) (“The judge’s inquiry, therefore,
unavoidably asks . . . whether there is evidence upon which a
jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party
producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.” )(emphasis
in original) (internal quotations omitted)); see also Chanel,
Inc. v. Italian Activewear of Florida, Inc., 931 F.2d 1472, 1477
(11th Cir. 1991) (“But - particularly where, as here, the moving
party is also the party with the burden of proof on the issue it is important to remember the non-moving party must produce its
significant, probative evidence only after the movant has
satisfied its burden of demonstrating there is no genuine dispute
on any material fact.”).
A plaintiff seeking summary judgment must therefore
demonstrate that there is no triable issue as to the matters

2

alleged in his or her own pleadings.

Calderone, 799 F.2d at 259.

That is, the moving party must establish beyond controversy every
essential element of its claim or defense.
Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986).

Fontenot v. Upjohn
The moving party’s

evidence is judged by the same standard of proof applicable at
trial.

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

If the moving party fails to meet this burden, “the
nonmoving party has no obligation to produce anything, even if
the nonmoving party would have the ultimate burden of persuasion
at trial.”

Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos.,

Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000).

“The evidence of

the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences
are to be drawn in his favor.”
II.

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
DISCUSSION

Plaintiff fails to meet his initial burden of proof in
support of his Motion.

Plaintiff sets forth nothing showing that

there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial, provides no
basis for his Motion, and fails to establish beyond doubt any
element of his claim that Defendant Silva assaulted him in his
cell while Defendant Kaneakalau acted as the look out.

Plaintiff

also fails to follow the Federal and Local Rules for the District
of Hawaii relating to a motions for summary judgment.
R. Civ. P. 56(a); Local Rule LR56.1(a).

3

See Fed.

In short, Plaintiff

provides no “significant probative evidence tending to support
the complaint.”

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249; Rivera v.

AMTRAK, 331 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff neither

directs the court to evidence entitling him to a directed verdict
if that evidence went uncontroverted at trial, nor establishes
beyond controversy every essential element in his claims.
Summary judgment is inappropriate, and Defendants are not
required to oppose this Motion or to produce any evidence
controverting Plaintiff’s arguments.

Plaintiff’s Motion is

DENIED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 24, 2015.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

Silva v. Silva, et al., Civ. No. 15-00172 LEK/BMK; psas/Ords ‘15; J:\PSA Draft
Ords\LEK\Silva 15-172 LEK (MSJ fmeetbrdprf).wpd

4