Ellison v. Yellowstone County et al
Filing
97
ORDER ADOPTING 92 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full; denying 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion for Summary Judgment; denyi ng 64 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 87 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 1/8/2020. Transmitted electronically to prison for delivery to Plaintiff. (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
CV-18-56-BLG-BMM-JTJ
LIONEL SCOTT ELLISON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
OFFICER WASHINGTON, OFFICER
GROSULAK, OFFICER JOHNSON,
and SGT. PETERS,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Lionel Ellison’s remaining claims in this matter are that the
Defendants failed to provide him with adequate food, failed to protect him, and
retaliated against him. (Doc. 92 at 15). The parties have filed cross motions for
summary judgment on these remaining claims. United States Magistrate Judge
John Johnston entered Findings and Recommendations on November 4, 2019.
(Doc. 92).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Ellison’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 41) be denied; Officer Grosulak’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 47) be granted on all claims except for Ellison’s failure to protect claim;
Officer Washington’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 60) be granted on all
claims except Ellison’s claim of failure to provide food and failure to protect;
1
Officer Johnson’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 64) be denied with regard
to Ellison’s failure to protect claim; and Sgt. Peters’ motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 68) be granted.
Ellison and Officers Grosulak, Johnson, and Washington filed timely
objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 93, 94). The Court now
considers these objections and reviews the Findings and Recommendations. For
the reasons articulated below, the Court adopts in full the Findings and
Recommendations.
DISCUSSION
The Court reviews de novo the portions of the Findings and
Recommendations to which either party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Court reviews for clear error any portion to which no party specifically objected.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
(9th Cir. 1981).
A. Officers Grosulak, Johnson, and Washington’s Objections
Washington, Grosulak, and Johnson (collectively “Officers”) object to three
findings of fact in the Findings and Recommendations. The Officers first take
issue with the finding that they did not dispute Ellison is hypoglycemic. The
2
Officers contend that, if Ellison was hypoglycemic, the medical records would
have reflected that fact.
Second, Officer Washington objects to the finding that he does not dispute that
Ellison was not given dinner on September 22, 2019. Officer Washington “knew
of no reason why he would not have provided Ellison with dinner.” (Doc. 93 at 5).
Finally, Officer Grosulak objects to the finding that Grosulak knew Ellison had
complained about his cell-mate posing a threat to him. Grosulak alleges that he did
not know that Ellison had complained, and that there is nothing in the record to
support a conclusion that Grosulak knew Ellison complained and that his cell-mate
posed a threat to him. (Doc. 93 at 5).
The Court reads the Findings and Recommendations as applying the proper
summary judgment standard by drawing “all inferences supported by the evidence
in favor of the non-moving party.” Walls v. Cent. Costa Cnty. Transit Auth., 653
F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 2011). The Magistrate Judge correctly drew inferences in
favor of Ellison when considering the Officers’ motions for summary judgment,
and the Officers’ objections do not rise to the level of genuine disputes of fact. See
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The
Officers raise issues that are appropriately resolved at trial, not at the summary
judgment stage.
3
The Officers also object to the recommendation to deny their motions for
summary judgment on the failure to provide food and failure to protect claims. For
the reasons discussed above, accepting the findings made by the Magistrate Judge
and the facts alleged by Ellison, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Ellison’s right to
humane living conditions was violated by a failure to receive food.
Similarly, regarding the failure to protect claim, the Court agrees that there is a
genuine issue of material fact. The Officers object because they allege that the
injuries suffered by Ellison were only minor, and that their duty to protect Ellison
only extends as far as protecting him from serious harm. Drawing inferences in
favor of Ellison, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that there is a genuine
issue of fact regarding whether Ellison was placed at a substantial risk of suffering
serious harm when he was placed in the cell with Aalgaard, the inmate whom
Ellison alleges threatened and assaulted him, and whether that placement actually
caused him injury.
B. Ellison’s Objections
Ellison objects to the recommendation that his motion for summary judgment
be dismissed. As discussed above, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that there are genuine issues of material fact properly resolved at trial.
4
Ellison also objects to the recommendation to grant Sgt. Peters’s motion for
summary judgment. Ellison asserts that Sgt. Peters acknowledged that he knew of
the threats made against Ellison, and thus he is liable. Ellison does not point to any
evidence demonstrating that Sgt. Peters made an intentional decision, however,
that placed Ellison at a substantial risk of suffering serious harm.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 92) are ADOPTED IN
FULL.
2. Ellison’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 41) is DENIED.
3. Defendant Grosulak’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is
GRANTED on all claims except Ellison’s failure to protect regarding the
alleged assault on December 10, 2015.
4. Defendant Washington’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) is
GRANTED on all claims except Ellison’s claim of failure to provide
adequate food and failure to protect regarding the alleged assault on
December 10, 2015.
5. Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 64) is
DENIED.
6. Defendant Peters’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 68) is
GRANTED.
5
7. Ellison’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 87) is DENIED
DATED this 8th day of January, 2020.
6
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?