Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02031/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02031-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Anna Madrid, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2031-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52),

and two Motions for Ruling on the summary judgment motion. (Docs. 54, 56). For the

reasons given below, the motions are granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s claims arise from her experience as a pre-trial detainee in the Maricopa

County Jail system from May 12 to May 28, 2009. Before she entered custody, she had

sustained a severe injury to her right arm, and she claims that jail officials and medical staff

failed to treat her injury properly. Her complaint contained a cause of action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a violation of her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and

also contained a number of state law claims, including negligence, gross negligence, medial

malpractice, and failure to provide medical care. (Doc. 1-1, Ex. A). The case was removed

to federal court on September 22, 2010. (Doc. 1).

Case 2:10-cv-02031-GMS Document 57 Filed 05/31/12 Page 1 of 3
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 -

On April 27, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss. (Doc. 14). Discovery and settlement negotiations, took place over the next eight

months. (Docs. 40–49). On January 26, Plaintiff’s attorney moved to withdraw from the case

because Plaintiff had become non-responsive and non-communicative; the Court granted

leave to withdraw the next day. (Docs. 50, 51). Defendants moved for summary judgment

on February 14, 2012. (Doc. 52). Despite being issued a warning that failure to respond

would be considered as consent to the granting of the motion, Plaintiff has not filed a

responsive memorandum. (Doc. 55).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Under the Local Rules, a party must file a responsive memorandum within fourteen

days of a motion’s filing. LRCiv. 7.2(c). Failure to respond “may be deemed a consent to the

denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv

7.2(i). “Although [the Court] construe[s] pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are

bound by the rules of procedure. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. When she first

failed to meet the deadline, she was offered additional time, and was explicitly informed by

the Court that failing to respond would be considered consent to the granting of the motion.

(Doc. 55). The Court has examined the motion and finds that it has merit—Plaintiff has failed

to rebut any of Defendants’ evidence that the prison medical staff were not deliberately

indifferent to her serious medical needs, and has not provided an expert witness on the

standard of care in support of her medical malpractice claims. Plaintiff’s failure to respond

is thereby construed as consent to granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and

the Court will “dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). Defendant’s motion is

granted and the case is dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Case 2:10-cv-02031-GMS Document 57 Filed 05/31/12 Page 2 of 3
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 -

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52) is granted.

2. Defendants’ two Motions for Ruling (Docs. 54, 56) are granted.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this lawsuit.

DATED this 31st day of May, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02031-GMS Document 57 Filed 05/31/12 Page 3 of 3