Opinion
No. C 06-5222 PJH (PR).
March 11, 2008
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).
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.