Weathersby v. Barton et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 34 . Signed on 3/6/18 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Order mailed to Keith Weathersby, 16898-112, BBS Vinewood RRC, 5520 Harold Way, Los Angeles CA 90028.Keith Weathersby, 16898-112, RRM Long Beach, 1299 Seaside Avenue, San Pedro, CA 90731.Keith Weathersby, 16898-112, FCI, PO Box 3007, San Pedro CA 97031.Keith Weathersby, 2952 LaSalle Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90018.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
KEITH V. WEATHERSBY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GEORGE A. BARTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-00866-CV-W-ODS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pending is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Doc. #34. As detailed
below, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the Court grants
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed his pro se complaint in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. Doc. #1. On August 7, 2017,
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Doc. #14. On
August 23, 2017, Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and argued in the
alternative that the matter should be transferred to this Court where jurisdiction was
proper. Doc. #18. On October 11, 2017, United States District Court Judge Manuel
Real, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transferred this matter to this Court after finding
jurisdiction was not proper in the Central District of California. Doc. #25.
On November 10, 2017, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment.
Doc. #34. On November 20, 2017, Defendants filed “supplemental suggestions
regarding Plaintiff’s current residential address” in which they indicated their belief that
Plaintiff’s residential address had changed since the complaint was filed. Doc. #36.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
On December 11, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing
Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ motion, and warned that a failure to respond
by January 11, 2018, would result in the Court deeming Defendants’ motion ripe for
consideration. Doc. #37. This Order was mailed, via regular mail and certified mail, to
the residential re-entry center where Plaintiff was held and to the Federal Correctional

Institute in which Plaintiff resided when he filed his complaint. Id. Plaintiff did not
respond to the Court’s Order.
On January 18, 2018, the Court issued another Order to Show Cause directing
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Doc. #40. Out of an
abundance of caution, the Court mailed, via regular mail and certified mail, this Order to
both residential re-entry centers at which the Court believed Plaintiff was housed, and
sent a copy to the Federal Correctional Institute in which Plaintiff resided when he filed
his complaint.1 Id. Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s Order.
On February 13, 2018, the Court issued, via regular mail and certified mail, a
third Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. Doc. #45. The Court mailed the Order to a residential address in
Los Angeles, California provided by Plaintiff in September 2017 prior to the case being
transferred to this Court. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order.2
Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, nor has
Plaintiff responded to the Court’s three Orders to Show Cause. The Court considers the
facts set forth by Defendants to be undisputed and admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)(2); Local R. 56.1(b)(1). Based on the record before it, the Court grants
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the undisputed facts show
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: March 6, 2018

1

As part of its effort to ensure delivery of its Orders to Plaintiff, the Court utilized the
Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator tool available online to Court personnel.
2
The Court received multiple “green cards” showing receipt of its Orders. Docs. #4144, 46.
2