PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KIMBERLY NEAL BEPPLE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. STEVE SHELTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-727-SI

ORDER

Leonard Randolph Berman, LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD R. BERMAN, 4711 SW Huber Street, Suite 

E-3, Portland, OR 97219. Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General; Michael R. Washington, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General; Jessica B. Spooner, Assistant Attorney General; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

TRIAL DIVISION, 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301. Of Attorneys for Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

Plaintiff Kimberly Neal Bepple (“Bepple”) was an inmate at the Coffee Creek 

Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), a state prison for women in Oregon. The following claims 

remain: (1) Bepple’s civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Dr. Robert 

Snider and Dr. Steve Shelton; (2) Bepple’s state tort claim for medical negligence against 

Defendants Dr. Snider, Dr. Shelton, Dr. Elizabeth Sazie, James Coulter, and Han Vu; and 

(3) Bepple’s state tort claim for sexual battery against Dr. Snider. The jury trial on these claims 

Case 3:15-cv-00727-SI Document 102 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 4
PAGE 2 – ORDER

is scheduled to begin on March 6, 2017. Pending before the Court are: (1) Defendants’ Second 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 79); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Witnesses 

(ECF 90). For the reasons stated below, both motions are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are presented in the light most favorable to Bepple. On April 24, 

2013, Bepple was admitted as an inmate at CCCF. On May 1, 2013, Dr. Snider performed 

gynecological exams on Bepple at CCCF. That facility requires gynecological exams for all 

female inmates. Bepple had undergone routine exams in the past, both in and out of custody, 

without incident. Dr. Snider’s examination, however, deviated from what Bepple had previously 

experienced. Coulter, a medical assistant, attended Bepple’s exam. During Dr. Snider’s 

examination, a curtain was drawn, shielding Bepple from view of the attending medical assistant. 

Dr. Snider inserted a speculum into Bepple’s vagina and manipulated it “in a non-therapeutic and 

highly irregular and offensive manner.” ECF 1 ¶ 8. Dr. Snider told Bepple that her cervix was

playing “hide and seek.” Id. ¶¶ 19, 21-22.

After the examination, Bepple called friends and family to state that Dr. Snider had 

“sexually assaulted” her. ECF 8 at ¶ 7. Bepple alleges that Dr. Snider acted for his own sexual 

gratification rather than any medical reason. According to Bepple, Defendants unlawfully failed 

to require visible attendants during gynecological exams, report Dr. Snider’s conduct to an 

outside agency, and hire, train, and supervise medical staff in how to properly treat female 

inmates to prevent sexual assault. According to Bepple’s counsel, there are at least seven other 

women who previously were sexually assaulted by Dr. Snider while they were inmates at CCCF.

On October 19, 2015, Defendants filed an amended motion for partial summary 

judgment. ECF 19. Plaintiff opposed that motion (ECF 23), and the Court heard oral argument. 

ECF 26. On February 17, 2016, the Court issued its written Opinion and Order, granting in part 

Case 3:15-cv-00727-SI Document 102 Filed 01/13/17 Page 2 of 4
PAGE 3 – ORDER

and denying in part Defendants’ motion. ECF 27. Among other things, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiff Bepple’s claims against all individual Defendants in their official capacities, Plaintiff 

Bepple’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and Plaintiff Bepple’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against Defendant Dr. Sazie. ECF 27 at 19. The Court denied Defendants’ motion and allowed to 

proceed to trial: (1) Plaintiff Bepple’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants 

Dr. Snider and Dr. Shelton; (2) Plaintiff Bepple’s state tort claim for medical negligence against 

Defendants Dr. Snider, Dr. Shelton, Dr. Sazie, Mr. Coulter, and Mr. Vu.; and (3) Plaintiff 

Bepple’s state tort claim for sexual battery against Dr. Snider. Id.

DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Defendants move for an order under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1

granting the following relief (1) substituting the State of Oregon for the individually-named 

defendants on Plaintiff’s two common law claims (medical negligence and sexual battery), 

pursuant to the Oregon Tort Claims Act (“OTCA”), Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.265; (2) dismissing 

Defendant Han Vu “[t]o the extent that Defendant Vu remains individually-named as to the 

medical negligence claim”; and (3) dismissing Defendant Dr. Elizabeth Sazie “[t]o the extent 

that Defendant Sazie remains individually-named as to the medical negligence claim.” ECF 79 

at 5. Plaintiff concedes part (1) of Defendants’ motion. ECF 98 at 2. Accordingly, the State of 

Oregon is substituted for all individually-named defendants in Plaintiffs’ two common law 

claims, alleging medical negligence and sexual battery. This also renders moot parts (2) and (3) 

of Defendants’ motion.

 

1 Defendant invokes Rule 47 B of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. The Oregon 

Rules of Civil Procedure, however, have no application in this federal lawsuit.

Case 3:15-cv-00727-SI Document 102 Filed 01/13/17 Page 3 of 4
PAGE 4 – ORDER

Plaintiff, however, argues that Dr. Sazie should be included as a named-Defendant in 

Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1883. The Court has already granted summary judgment in 

favor of Defendant Sazie on that claim (ECF 27 at 19), and there is no motion to reconsider 

properly before the Court at this time.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Witnesses

Although discovery has closed, Plaintiff seeks to add the following four witnesses to its 

case-in-chief: Misty Anderson, Ashley Matsumoto, Misty Wolf, and Teresa Torres. Defendants 

object, arguing that, among other things, they will be unfairly prejudiced unless they can take the 

depositions of these witnesses and produce additional documents relating to these witnesses. 

Plaintiff has no objection to the additional discovery that Defendants seek. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

may add these additional four witnesses, and Defendants may depose these witnesses and 

supplement its document production with related documents as appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 79) and Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Add Witnesses (ECF 90) are GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2017.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00727-SI Document 102 Filed 01/13/17 Page 4 of 4