Lant v. Klamath County Jail et al

Filing 33

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)

I
I

f

I
I

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jesi Ray Lant,
Plaintiff,

1:15-cv-02073-AA
ORDER

v.

Frank Skrah, et al.,
Defendants.
Mcshane, District Judge.
Plaintiff

filed

a

complaint

under

42

U.S.C.§

1983,

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
cell conditions,"
medical care.

excessive

force,

and denial

of adequate

Plaintiff also alleges two claims under the

Oregon Constitution.
All of plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law because
they are alleged against "defendants" collectively.

Plaintiff

has not alleged any specific facts against specific individual

1 - ORDER

defendants.
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.
General

allegations

are

insufficient.

The

absence

of

any

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).
548 F.
Blum,

Supp.

613,

614

528 F.Supp.

252,

(D.Md.
262

Polk v. Montgomery County,

1982).

See also,

(S.D. N.Y.

1981),

Morabito v.

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

specific individuals.

Arguably
amendment.

this

pleading deficiency

However,

defendants

Summary Judgment (#24).

have

could be
filed

a

cured by

Motion

for

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.

Plaintiff was

advised that his response was due by December 19,

2016 and

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

Plaintiff

Defendants motion for summary judgment is 19 pages long
and responds

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

Warren (#30).
The facts established in the declarations have not been
controverted

by

plaintiff.

Defendants'

arguments

and

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.
A party

is

entitled

to

summary

judgment

where

the

documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one
conclusion.
251-52(1986).

Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby Inc.,

477 U.S.

242,

"If the moving party meets its initial burden

of showing the absence of a material and triable issue of
fact,

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,
1558

(9th Cir.

1991).

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,
burden.

defendants have satisfied their initial

Although being advised of the summary judgment rules

and afforded

an opportunity

to

do

so,

plaintiff

has

not

presented any evidence or arguments in response.
Therefore, defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#24)
is allowed.

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
faith.

plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is

Therefore,

revoked.

DATED this 7
-

'\

day of December, 2016.

\

- l~---

Michael Mcshane
United States District Judge

4 - ORDER