Ellison v. Yellowstone County et al

Filing 203

ORDER denying 188 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 194 Motion for Partial Default Judgment; denying 196 Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 1/18/2024. Mailed to Ellison (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
LIONEL SCOTT ELLISON,

CV 18-00056-BLG-BMM-JTJ

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

OFFICER WASHINGTON, OFFICER
GROSLOCK, OFFICER JOHNSON,
and SERGEANT PETERS,
Defendants.
Pending before the Court are motions filed by Plaintiff Lionel Ellison
(“Ellison”). (Docs. 188, 194, and 196). A jury trial is currently scheduled for April
9, 2024. Shortly after Ellison filed these motions, he filed an interlocutory appeal
with the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 197.) The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. (Doc. 201); see also Mandate (Doc. 202).
By way of background, the Court reiterates that the claims proceeding to trial
are discrete and finite: (1) did Defendant Washington fail to provide Mr. Ellison with
a meal on September 22, 2015; and (2) did Defendants fail to protect Mr. Ellison in
relation to an alleged assault that occurred on December 10, 2015, at the Yellowstone
County Detention Center. The Court previously addressed various motions filed by
Ellison in a comprehensive order. (See Doc. 191.) Specifically, the Court denied the
1

following: Ellison’s petition for writ of scire facia (id. at 1–3); Ellison’s motion for
subpoena and leave to file a third-party complaint (id. at 3–6); Ellison’s motion to
reinstate the original defendants (id. at 7–9); and Ellison’s motion to stay. (Id. at 9–
10.) The Court will address Ellison’s present motions in turn.
i.

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Ellison first requests that this Court issue an order granting him summary
judgment against Defendants based upon a purported lack of controversy. (Doc.
188). As set forth above, one of the claims that is proceeding against the three
remaining Defendants is that they failed to protect Mr. Ellison in conjunction with
an incident on December 10, 2015, at the Yellowstone County Detention Center.
Ellison asserts that the officers knowingly placed a dangerous individual in his cell,
in an act of retaliation, who purportedly attacked Ellison. Ellison premises his
present summary judgment motion upon his learning that the man placed in his cell,
Steve Aalgard, has died. Ellison asserts that Aalgard’s death means no one remains
available to contradict his version of events that occurred on December 10, 2015,
and, accordingly, he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Id. at 2.)
Defendants oppose Ellison’s motion. (Doc. 190.) Defendants generally argue
that Ellison has failed to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists or
that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Id. at 1.) Additionally, Defendants
point out that Ellison filed the motion after the motions deadline had passed and that
2

Ellison failed to file a statement of undisputed facts in support of his motion. (Id.)
Defendants’ position is well-taken.
As an initial matter, Ellison filed his summary judgment motion nearly four
years after the August 9, 2019, motions deadline. The jury trial has been rescheduled multiple times. (See Docs. 101, 171, 175, and 186.) The Court previously
considered whether issues of material fact existed when the parties filed their
respective motions for summary judgment. The Court determined that there were
issues of material fact relative to the two claims outlined above. (See e.g., Doc. 97.)
As pointed out by Defendants, despite the death of Aalgard, there exists other
evidence that contradicts Ellison’s version of events that occurred on December 10,
2015. (Doc. 190 at 2–3.) Thus, there exists an issue of fact that will be up to the jury
to decide. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (holding
“credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions,” not those of a judge ruling on a motion
for summary judgment). Ellison’s motion is untimely and finds no support in law or
the facts of this case. The motion will be denied.
ii.

Motion for Partial Default Judgment

Ellison requests this Court issue an order for “partial default judgment”
against the third-party defendants based upon their failure to respond to his thirdparty complaint. (See Docs. 194 and 196.) As set forth above, Ellison was previously
3

denied leave to file a third-party complaint. The Court explained in detail the basis
for the denial. (Doc. 191 at 3–6.) Accordingly, the third-party defendants were not
served and had no duty to appear or answer Ellison’s complaint. These motions will
also be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Ellison’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 188) is DENIED.
2. Ellison’s Motions for Partial Default Judgment/Entry of Default (Docs.
194 and 196) are DENIED.
3. At all times during the pendency of this action, Ellison must immediately
advise the Court and opposing counsel of any change of address and its
effective date.
DATED this 18th day of January, 2024.

4