Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01222/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01222-3/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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allen E. Elmore, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1222-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant the State of Arizona’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. # 95). Plaintiff has not responded, although he was informed of his right and

obligation to do so (Doc. # 104). The Court will grant the State’s motion, dismiss the

remaining Doe Defendants, and terminate this action. 

I. Background

The Court’s August 14, 2006 Order granting summary judgment in favor of the other

Defendants in this action details the background of this case. Plaintiff’s remaining claims

are: (1) constitutional and state law claims against Doe Defendants who have not been

served; and (2) medical malpractice claims against the State of Arizona. 

The State of Arizona has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Plaintiff

(1) failed to submit a notice of claim in violation of A.R.S. §12-821.01(A) and (2) did not

offer any expert medical testimony to establish breach of the statutory standard of care and

proximate causation in violation of A.R.S. §12-563(A)(1) and (2). 

Case 2:05-cv-01222-MHM Document 105 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 4
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 -

II. Summary Judgment Standard

A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents,

viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, “show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

When considering a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the non-movant is “to be

believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). These inferences are limited, however, “to those

upon which a reasonable jury might return a verdict.” Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co.,

68 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who, after

adequate time for discovery, fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to that party’s case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof

at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. Rule 56(e) compels the nonmoving party to “set forth

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” and not to “rest upon the mere

allegations or denials of [the party’s] pleading.” The nonmoving party must do more than

“simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita

Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). There is no issue

for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party. Anderson, 477

U.S. at 249. Summary judgment is warranted if the evidence is “merely colorable” or “not

significantly probative.” Id. at 249-50. 

III. Analysis

A. Notice of Claim 

A.R.S. §12-821.01(A) provides that “persons who have claims against a public entity

or a public employee shall file claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service

for the public entity . . . within 180 days after the cause of action accrues.” Plaintiff asserted

a claim of medical malpractice against the State of Arizona in his First Amended Complaint

(Doc. # 95, Ex. A). That medical malpractice claim centers around two episodes in late

Case 2:05-cv-01222-MHM Document 105 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 4
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 -

September and early October 2004 where Plaintiff contends he did not receive appropriate

medical care for his heart condition. 

The State of Arizona correctly argues that Plaintiff was required to submit a notice of

claim related to his medical malpractice claim within 180 days of when his cause of action

accrued. Here, because Plaintiff’s claim accrued no later than October 2004, he would have

been required to submit a notice of claim no later than April 2005. Defendant has provided

two affidavits from employees of the State of Arizona who attest that there is no record of

any notice of claim from Plaintiff related to his medical malpractice claim (Doc. # 95, Exs.

C & D). Plaintiff, in failing to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, has

not presented any evidence that he complied with A.R.S. §12-821.01(A). As a result,

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

B. Absence of Expert Testimony

Defendant has also moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed

to introduce expert testimony to support his medical malpractice claim as required by A.R.S.

§ 12-821.01. Plaintiff acknowledged in his First Amended Complaint that expert testimony

would be required to support his claims (Doc. # 95, Ex. A at ¶ 15). Plaintiff’s failure to

provide any expert testimony to support his claim requires a dismissal of Plaintiff’s medical

malpractice claim against the State of Arizona. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment will be granted.

C. Dismissal of Doe Defendants

In the Court’s December 20, 2006 Order, Plaintiff was required to show cause within

30 days why the unserved Doe Defendants should not be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to

respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff has had more than sufficient

opportunity to name the Doe Defendants and effect their service. As a result, the Doe

Defendants will be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant the State of Arizona’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 95) is

granted. Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim against the State of Arizona is dismissed.

Case 2:05-cv-01222-MHM Document 105 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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 -

(2) Defendant the State of Arizona’s Motion for Summary Disposition of its Motion

for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 101) is denied as moot.

(3) The Doe Defendants are dismissed.

(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this

action.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01222-MHM Document 105 Filed 06/19/07 Page 4 of 4