Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01610/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01610-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gustavo Rene Salazar, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 03-1610 PHX RCB (VAM)

)

Charles Ryan, Conrad Luna, )

Steve Fulton, ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

)

 Defendants. )

_________________________________)

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. #27).

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on August 20, 2003. (Doc. #1). On September 11,

2003, the Court ordered Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s claims

that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. #4).

On March 15, 2005, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Count II of the complaint and granted Defendants’ motion

to dismiss Count I and Count III of the complaint. (Doc. #21).

Plaintiff was deposed. (Doc. #26).

 On November 30, 2005, Defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment and a statement of facts in support of their

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #27; Doc. #28). Although

Plaintiff was twice warned by the Court that his failure to 

Case 2:03-cv-01610-RCB-VAM Document 32 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Prior to December 1, 2004, this rule was designated as Local

Rule 1.10.

-2-

respond to the motion could be deemed as consent to the entry of

judgment against Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 7.2(i), Local Rules

of Civil Procedure,1 (Doc. #29, issued December 5, 2005; Doc.

#30, issued February 7, 2006), Plaintiff has not responded to or

otherwise opposed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that summary judgment shall be entered if the

pleadings, depositions, affidavits, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file show that there is no genuine dispute

regarding the material facts of the case and the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The Court must

consider a party’s motion for summary judgment construing the

alleged facts with all reasonable inferences favoring the

nonmoving party. See Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d

1104, 1117 (9th Cir. 2001).

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial

burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion, and

identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together

with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the

absence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving

party has met its initial burden with a properly supported

motion, the party opposing the motion “may not rest upon the

Case 2:03-cv-01610-RCB-VAM Document 32 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but ... must set

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Summary judgment is

appropriate against a party who “fails to make a showing

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to

that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden

of proof at trial.” Id. at 322; see also Citadel Holding Corp.

v. Roven, 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Defendants assert there are no genuine issues of

material fact precluding summary judgment in their favor.

Defendants have identified those portions of the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file and

affidavits which they believe demonstrate the absence of any

genuine issue of material fact.

Plaintiff has not set forth specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue of fact remaining for trial.

Additionally, Plaintiff has not made any showing regarding the

existence of any element essential to his claim

The Local Civil Rules for the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona, Rule 7.2(i), provide that a

party’s failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment may,

in the Court’s discretion, be deemed a consent to the Court’s

granting of judgment in favor of the movant. See Brydges v.

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). When the Court has

warned the non-moving part that their failure to respond “‘shall

constitute a consent’” to the granting of the motion, the Court

may properly exercise its discretion to grant the motion for

judgment as a matter of law based on the non-moving party’s

Case 2:03-cv-01610-RCB-VAM Document 32 Filed 08/24/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

construed consent. Id. See also Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc.,

983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting, however, that the

Court’s discretion “is necessarily abused when exercised to

grant a motion for summary judgment where the movant’s papers

are insufficient to support that motion or on their face reveal

a genuine issue of material fact.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d

52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court did not

abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants’ motion to

dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time

to respond to motion but failed to do so). Although twice

warned that his failure to respond to Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment could result in the entry of judgment in favor

of Defendants and against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not responded

to the motion for summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment denies the

factual and legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff has

not demonstrated the existence of a genuine fact requiring

resolution at trial by producing controverting evidence or by

contesting Defendants’ statement of facts in support of the

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has failed to meet his

burden to show any element of a claim Defendants violated his

civil rights. Because Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion

for judgment in Defendants’ favor, although he was twice warned

his case could be dismissed for his failure to do so, and

because Defendants deny the underlying factual basis for

Plaintiff’s claim, summary judgment in favor of Defendants is

appropriate.

Case 2:03-cv-01610-RCB-VAM Document 32 Filed 08/24/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. #27) is GRANTED. Judgment with prejudice

is hereby entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff

on all claims stated in Plaintiff’s complaint, and Plaintiff is

to take nothing thereby.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a result of summary

judgment having been granted in favor of Defendants, the Clerk

of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01610-RCB-VAM Document 32 Filed 08/24/06 Page 5 of 5