Trumble v. Reinke et al

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Defendant Whinnery'S Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 47 ) is GRANTED and the claims against Whinnery are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 57 ) is GRANTED as explained above. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Dkt. 60 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CHARLES TRUMBLE,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00256-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
BRENT REINKE, et. al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it IDOC Defendant Whinnery’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 47), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 57), and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend (Dkt. 60). The motions are now fully ripe, and the Court issues the following
memorandum decision and order.
ANALYSIS
I.

Whinnery’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant Whinnery asks the Court for summary judgment on all claims against

her. Specifically, she argues that Trumble has failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

A.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to any claim or
defense, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). One of the principal purposes of the
summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims . . . .”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). It is “not a disfavored procedural
shortcut,” but is instead the “principal tool[ ] by which factually insufficient claims or
defenses [can] be isolated and prevented from going to trial with the attendant
unwarranted consumption of public and private resources.” Id. at 327. “[T]he mere
existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). There must be a genuine dispute as to any material fact – a fact
“that may affect the outcome of the case.” Id. at 248.
The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
and the Court must not make credibility findings. Id. at 255. Direct testimony of the
non-movant must be believed, however implausible. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d
1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). On the other hand, the Court is not required to adopt
unreasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence. McLaughlin v. Liu, 849 F.2d
1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 1988).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine dispute as to material fact. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir.
2001)(en banc). To carry this burden, the moving party need not introduce any
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

affirmative evidence (such as affidavits or deposition excerpts) but may simply point out
the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Fairbank v. Wunderman
Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir.2000).
This shifts the burden to the non-moving party to produce evidence sufficient to
support a jury verdict in her favor. Deveraux, 263 F.3d at 1076. The non-moving party
must go beyond the pleadings and show “by her [ ] affidavits, or by the depositions,
answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file” that a genuine dispute of material fact
exists. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
B.

Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Whinnery argues that Trumble failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. A
prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before he can bring a prison
conditions claim under § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Exhaustion of administrative
remedies is an affirmative defense which must be proved by the defendant. Albino v.
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). “If undisputed evidence viewed in the light
most favorable to the prisoner shows a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to
summary judgment under Rule 56.” Id. at 1166. Such a determination “should be decided
as early as feasible” in the case. Id. at 1170.
Here, a formal grievance process was available to Trumble. Whittington Aff., Dkt.
47-2. In fact, Trumble has used the grievance process to completion on five separate
occasions. Id. On five other occasions, he has not completed the process. Id.
In his Amended Complaint, Trumble alleges that Dr. Whinnery told him that
before anything could be done about his bloody stools, he would need to take a smear test
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

for Colon Cancer, that the test results came back positive for blood in his stool, and that
Dr. Whinnery neglected to inform him about the results. Amended Complaint, p. 4, Dkt.
23. He further alleges that this was not the first smear test because the first one was lost,
which caused him pain while waiting for the second test results. Id.
A review of Trumble’s completed grievances indicates that none of them relate to
these allegations. Whittington Aff., Ex. H, Dkt. 47-5. Rather, they relate to (1) hand and
feet swelling, (2) a dispute between submitting and responding to concern forms and
Health Service request forms, (3) lumps or swelling in his neck, (4) medication for
Addison’s disease or hypothyroidism, and (5) allegations of perceived harassment by
defendant Poulson. Id. Therefore, Trumble has not exhausted his administrative remedies
with regard to his allegations against Whinnery. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the
claims against Whinnery without prejudice. Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175 (9th
Cir. 2005).
II.

Motion to Compel
Trumble asks the Court to compel defendants Blades and Yordy to respond to

outstanding discovery requests. There appears to be some confusion between the parties,
and it is not altogether clear from the briefing whether discovery is outstanding.
However, it does seem clear to the Court that the defendants have somehow reviewed
Trumble’s first set of discovery because they explain why certain requests are only
relevant to the other defendants. Under these circumstances, the Court will order Blades
and Yordy to respond to the discovery requests. If certain requests are not applicable to

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

them, they can simply so state in their responses. The responses shall be provided to
Trumble within 30 days of the date of this Order.
III.

Motion to Amend
Trumble asks to amend his Amended Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15 governs the motion. It states that the Court freely give leave to amend a complaint
when justice so requires. However, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that courts should
deny leave to amend when it would be a mere “exercise in futility.” Leadsinger, Inc. v.
BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir.2008)
Here, this is the second time Trumble has asked the Court to amend his complaint
in this manner – to add Corizon as a defendant. Earlier, the Court refused to allow the
amendment, and Trumble has come forward with nothing new. He merely references the
same affidavits, same prior litigation of other inmates, and the same arguments. And in
the Court’s earlier Order denying Trumble’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the
Court explained that Trumble was not likely to prevail on the merits of his claim that
giving Solu-Medrol instead of hydrocortisone posed a serious risk of substantial harm.
Likewise, the Court concluded that Trumble was not likely to prevail on his request for
an offsite endocrinologist assessment every six months. Nothing has changed, and
Trumble has presented the Court with nothing more to support such claims. Accordingly,
his amendment would be futile, and the Court will deny the motion to amend.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant Whinnery’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 47) is
GRANTED and the claims against Whinnery are dismissed without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 57) is GRANTED as explained above.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. 60) is DENIED.

DATED: March 16, 2016
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6