Lant v. Klamath County Jail et al
ORDER Allowing Motion for Summary Judgment 24 . Clerk of Court directed to enter judgment dismissing action with prejudice. Signed on 12/29/16 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (kf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jesi Ray Lant,
Frank Skrah, et al.,
Mcshane, District Judge.
alleging defendants violated his rights during his detention
in the Klamath County Jail on April 30, 2014 through May 1,
2014. Plaintiff alleges Constitutional claims for "unsanitary
Plaintiff also alleges two claims under the
All of plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law because
they are alleged against "defendants" collectively.
has not alleged any specific facts against specific individual
1 - ORDER
In order to state a claim against a named defendant,
plaintiff must allege specific facts about that defendant and
identify how that defendant's conduct violated his rights.
factual allegations against a named defendant will entitle
that defendant to have the complaint dismissed as to him,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
Polk v. Montgomery County,
see also Bell
Alantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal for failure
to state a claim because plaintiff fails to allege specific
fact as to
Summary Judgment (#24).
On November 14, 2014, plaintiff was
sent a summary judgment advice notice
(#31) advising him of
the federal rules concerning summary judgments and what he
must do to avoid having his case dismissed.
advised that his response was due by December 19,
that defendants' motion for summary judgment would be taken
under advisement by the court on December 20, 2016.
has not filed a response.
2 - ORDER
Defendants motion for summary judgment is 19 pages long
in detail to each of plaintiff's claims with
cogent argument supported by the declarations of
Jeanette Davidson (#25), Joni Stewart (#26), Michael Thompson
(#27), Shawn Garlock (#28), Valerie Neese
(#29), and Gerald
The facts established in the declarations have not been
supporting facts establish that there is "no genuine dispute
as to any material fact, and that defendants are "entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one
Liberty Lobby Inc.,
"If the moving party meets its initial burden
of showing the absence of a material and triable issue of
the burden then moves to the opposing party, who must
present significant and probative evidence tending to support
its claim or defense. Intel Corp. V. Hartford, 952 F.2d 1551,
In other words,
(plaintiff in this case)
the non-moving party
must produce sufficient evidence
demonstrating to the court that there are genuine issues of
material fact to be decided at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
To do this, plaintiff must point to specific evidence in the
3 - ORDER
record. Celotex v. Catrett, 447 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
In this case,
defendants have satisfied their initial
Although being advised of the summary judgment rules
presented any evidence or arguments in response.
Therefore, defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#24)
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a
judgment dismissing this action with prejudice.
Any appeal from an order adopting this Order or Judgment
dismissing this case would be frivolous and not taken in good
plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is
DATED this 7
day of December, 2016.
United States District Judge
4 - ORDER
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?