Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02260/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02260-0/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

1 All other named Defendants have been dismissed from this matter. See Doc. #7.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DEBRA M. MAHONEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 03-2260 PHX NVW (MEA)

)

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, CORRECTIONAL )

HEALTH, DORA SCHRIRO, )

MARY HENNESSY, A. W. RIBBONS, )

JOANN SMITH, CAPTAIN BOOL, )

OFFICER TURNER, OFFICER LYNCH, )

LARRY CLAUSEN, TOM REID, )

OFFICER BAIORI, OFFICER PALMER, )

OFFICER TUTTLE, OFFICER FINK, )

OFFICER YOUNG, )

)

 Defendants. )

______________________________________ )

Pending before the Court is Defendant Bool and Lynch’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. #27).1

I Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

November 17, 2003. (Doc. #1). On June 6, 2003, the Court ordered Defendant Bool and

Defendant Lynch to answer Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants violated her constitutional rights

by subjecting her to cruel and unusual punishment. (Doc. #7). Defendants filed an answer to

the complaint on October 26, 2004. (Doc. #12). 

Case 2:03-cv-02260-NVW-MEA Document 34 Filed 10/18/05 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 2

 Prior to December 1, 2004, this rule was designated as Local Rule 1.10.

-2-

On July 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of the time allowed

to file a motion for summary judgment in this matter. (Doc. #26). The motion was granted and

the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment in this matter was extended to September

12, 2005. (Doc. #29) (dated July 21, 2005).

On July 18, 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).

On July 27, 2005, Plaintiff was warned by the Court that her failure to respond to Defendants’

motion for summary judgment within thirty days could be deemed as consent to the entry of

judgment against Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 7.2(i), Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona.2

 (Doc. #30). Plaintiff has not responded to or

otherwise opposed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, nor did Plaintiff file a separate

motion for summary judgment prior to the Court’s extended deadline of September 12, 2005.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she was subjected to conditions of confinement

which violated her rights pursuant to the Eight Amendment. Plaintiff contends that Defendant

Lynch acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by failing to assign

a cellmate to Plaintiff’s cell. The complaint also asserts that Defendant Bool ignored Plaintiff’s

reports of bedbugs in her mattress. 

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim must be dismissed

because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to her

serious medical needs. 

II Analysis

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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)

(2005); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The Court must evaluate a

Case 2:03-cv-02260-NVW-MEA Document 34 Filed 10/18/05 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-

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 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). 

To prevail in a section 1983 medical claim alleging violation of the Eighth

Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with “deliberate indifference to [her]

serious medical need.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The plaintiff must

demonstrate that a specific defendant, despite his or her knowledge of a substantial risk of

serious harm to the plaintiff, failed to take reasonable measures to abate the harm. Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).

Defendants assert that there are no genuine issues of material fact preventing

summary judgment in their favor. Plaintiff has not made any showing establishing the existence

of any element essential to her claims in opposition to Defendants’ motion for judgment as a

matter of law in their favor. Plaintiff offers no evidence, not even a sworn statement, that either

Defendant had knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to her, or that either Defendant

failed to take reasonable measures to abate the risk of harm.

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

Case 2:03-cv-02260-NVW-MEA Document 34 Filed 10/18/05 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-

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 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). 

Nevertheless, this court has considered Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment on its merits and grants it on its merits, in the absence of any controverting evidence

on the material facts that entitle the remaining Defendants to summary judgment.

III CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment denies the factual basis for Plaintiff’s

claims, i.e., that Defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of a genuine fact for trial by producing controverting

evidence or by contesting Defendants’ statement of facts in support of their motion for summary

judgment. Because Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion for judgment in Defendants’ favor,

although she was warned his case could be dismissed for her failure to do so, and because

Defendants deny the underlying factual basis for Plaintiff’s claim, summary judgment in favor

of Defendants is appropriate.

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.

Case 2:03-cv-02260-NVW-MEA Document 34 Filed 10/18/05 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 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 and shall

terminate this action.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02260-NVW-MEA Document 34 Filed 10/18/05 Page 5 of 5