Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05222/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott W. Campbell
Plaintiff
M. S. Evans
Defendant
G. Ponder
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT W. CAMPBELL, SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M. S. EVANS and G. PONDER,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-5222 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is a pro se section 1983 civil rights action filed by a former state prisoner.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Despite being granted an extension

of time, plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment solely because

the opposing party has failed to file an 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).

///

Case 4:06-cv-05222-PJH Document 14 Filed 03/11/08 Page 1 of 2
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

The papers in support of the motion for summary judgment show that

defendants believed that confinement to his cell and other actions about which

plaintiff complains were necessary for the security of the institution. The movants’

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

genuine issue of material fact. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (no

Eighth Amendment liability for prison conditions unless the prison official possessed a

sufficiently culpable state of mind). The motion for summary judgment will be

granted.

CONCLUSION

The motion for summary judgment (document number 8 on the docket) is

GRANTED. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 11, 2008. 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.06\CAMPBELL222.MSJ.wpd 

Case 4:06-cv-05222-PJH Document 14 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 2