Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03200/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03200-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMM. J.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KEVIN EARL HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF ROBERT DOYLE, 

et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT 

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he claims two Marin County sheriff’s deputies violated his Eighth

Amendment rights when they denied him the use of a wheelchair during a court visit on May

27, 2015. Defendants move for summary judgment (Docket No. 16), and have provided

plaintiff with the required warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc) (Docket No. 16-1). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. For the reasons

stated herein, defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to all claims against all defendants.

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 21 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMM. J.

2

BACKGROUND

In 2015, plaintiff was housed at various times at the Marin County Jail. (Defs.’ Mot.

for Summ. J. at 2.) While there, plaintiff complained of hip pain and told his jailors he had

had a bilateral hip replacement. (Id.) His jailors noted this, and made various

accommodations (a low bunk assignment, non-clearance for work duty, pain medication and

an extra mattress) in response. (Id.) On April 24, 2015, plaintiff, for the first time, made a

“sick call request” for the use of a wheelchair during a court visit. (Id.) His request was

granted for that day only by jail medical staff, who alone decide whether an inmate has a

need for a “mobility assistive device,” such as a wheelchair. (Id.) Sheriff’s deputies, such as

defendants Ryan Cloney and Jamaine Randle, do not decide such matters and have no control

over them. (Id. at 3.) 

On May 27, 2015, plaintiff had to attend court, but he did not make a formal sick call

request for a wheelchair. (Id. at 2.) Defendants Cloney and Randle, who were transporting

inmates to court appearances that day, remember plaintiff asking them for a wheelchair. (Id.

at 3.) They checked his records but found no notes indicating plaintiff had been approved for

a “mobility assistive device.” (Id.) At no time did defendants notice that plaintiff was

experiencing pain or had difficulty walking. (Id.) In fact, “both deputies observed [p]laintiff

walk to court without any issue.” (Id.) If they had noticed plaintiff having pain or difficulty,

they would have “referred [p]laintiff to the jail medical staff.” (Id.) 

On June 11, 2015, plaintiff made a formal sick call request for the use of a wheelchair

during a court visit. (Id. at 2.) His request was approved and on that same day his medical

file was “updated to reflect that he was permitted to have a wheelchair for court,” and the

deputies were informed of this change. (Id. at 3.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits

demonstrate that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 21 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMM. J.

3

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those

which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where

the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively

demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. In

contrast, on an issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, the

moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to support the

nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond

the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial. The court is only concerned with disputes over material

facts. “[F]actual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson,

477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue

of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party

has the burden of identifying, with reasonable particularity, the evidence that precludes

summary judgment. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

II. Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on May 27, 2015 Marin County sheriff’s deputies Ryan Cloney

and Jamaine Randle denied him the use of a wheelchair during a court visit. Plaintiff alleges

he was forced to walk sixty feet as a result, which caused him great pain. 

The motion for summary judgment is unopposed. A district court may not grant a

motion for summary judgment solely because the opposing party has failed to file an

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 21 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMM. J.

4

opposition. Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494–95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed

motion may be granted only after court determines that there are no material issues of fact). 

The Court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant’s

papers are themselves sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face reveal a

genuine issue of material fact. See United States v. Real Property at Incline Village, 47 F.3d

1511, 1520 (9th Cir. 1995) (local rule cannot mandate automatic entry of judgment for

moving party without consideration of whether motion and supporting papers satisfy Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996);

Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (same).

The papers in support of the motion for summary judgment are evidence that the

defendants did not violate plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff made no formal

sick call request for a wheelchair, and defendants had no authority to approve such a request. 

Furthermore, defendants did not observe plaintiff to be in pain or have difficulty walking. 

On these undisputed facts, defendants were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical

needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In sum, the movants’ papers are

sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of material

fact. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 16) is GRANTED. The

Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Ryan Cloney and Jamaine Randle as to all claims,

terminate Docket No. 16, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 21 Filed 04/22/16 Page 4 of 4