UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRlCT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

CHRlSTOPHER WEEDMARK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADAM WILSON, 

Defendant. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

6: 15-CV-1655-TC 

ORDER 

This is a§ 1983 action arising from a prison work-place injury that led to the amputation of one 

of plaintiffs fingers. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Corporal Adam Wilson told him to perform 

work in unsafe conditions that amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and that Corporal Wilson 

was deliberately indifferent to those unsafe conditions. 

Presently before the court are defendant's motion (#18) for summary judgment and plaintiffs 

motion(# 17) for partial summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motions are denied. 

Page 1 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01655-TC Document 29 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 4
Legal Standard 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows the granting of summary judgment: 

if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits 

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). There must be no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). 

The movant has the initial burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists 

or that a material fact essential to the nonmovant's claim is missing. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 

U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). Once the movant has met its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant 

to produce specific evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact or to establish the existence 

of all facts material to the claim. kL see also, Bhan v. NME Hosp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th 

Cir. 1991); Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 

2000). In order to meet this burden, the nonmovant "may not rely merely on allegations or denials 

in its own pleading," but must instead "set out specific facts showing a genuine issue of fact for 

trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

Material facts which preclude entry of summary judgment are those which, under applicable 

substantive law, may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Factual disputes 

are genuine if they "properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably 

be resolved in favor of either party." Id. On the other hand, if, after the court has drawn all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant, "the evidence is merely colorable, or is not 

significantly probative," summary judgment may be granted. Id. 

Page 2 - ORDER . 

Case 6:15-cv-01655-TC Document 29 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 4
DiBCUfii.en 

Plaintiff suffered the injury to his hand while working in the prison's recycling shop. He was 

told to strip insulation off of a 1 inch copper wire for recycling. P.p. 57-61 of Wilson Deposition. 

(P.p. 25-29 of#19-1). Plaintiff had requested the prison purchase wire strippers that would cost 

from about $56 to $200, but the prison denied the request as stripping wire was not a frequent task 

at the shop. Seep. 38 ofWeedmark Deposition (p. 9 of#19-2) and p.p. 33 of Wilson Deposition 

(p.10 ofExh. 2 attached to #17). 

Several different methods to strip the wire were attempted without success. Eventually plaintiff 

used a hand- held grinder with a blade for cutting wood attached to it and plaintiff was injured. 

Wilson states that he expressed concern about the tool, and told plaintiff he was not going to use 

that. P. 43 of Wilson Deposition ( p. 12 of Exh. 2 attached to #17). Defendant's counsel deposed 

plaintiff Weedmark and stated that defendant Corporal Wilson's recollection was that Corporal 

Wilson said to plaintiff, "don't use that, you'll cut your [expletive] hand off." P. 36 ofWeedmark 

Deposition (p. 7 of #19-2). 1 Defendant's counsel then asked plaintiff if he disputed this and 

plaintiff replied that he did dispute it and that Corporal Weedmark did not say that. Id. 

Based on the foregoing, summary judgment for either party is precluded as there is a genuine 

issue of material fact as to the existence of deliberate indifference. Drawing all reasonable 

inferences from the parties' statements in favor of the nonmovant plaintiff, defendant recognized 

the danger of using the tool, but did not tell plaintiff to not use it. Drawing all reasonable inferences 

from the statements in favor of nonmovant defendant, plaintiff was specifically told in no uncertain 

terms not to use the tool, but did anyway. 

1

Also see p.p. 46-47 of Wilson Deposition (p.13 ofExh. 2 attached to #17). 

Page 3 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01655-TC Document 29 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 4
. .. 

Even if there were not manifest factual disputes present, it would be better to proceed to a full 

trial because in the circumstances of this case a fuller record will afford a more substantial basis for 

decision. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Anderson v. Hodel, 899 

F.2d 766, 770-771 (91

h Cir. 1991)._ 

Conclusion 

The parties' motions (#17 and #18) for summary judgment are denied. 

DATED this_!:±__ day of August, 2016. 

Page 4 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01655-TC Document 29 Filed 08/04/16 Page 4 of 4