Opinion
No. C 06-6852 PJH (PR).
May 16, 2008
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a pro se section 1983 civil rights action filed by a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Priosn. The only remaining defendant, Dr. Sayre, has moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion for summary judgment
1. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 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.
The moving party 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. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Nissan Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). When the moving party has met this burden of production, 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. If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins. Id.
2. Analysis
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 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).
Plaintiff contends that Sayre, the Chief Medical Officer, discriminated against him by refusing to allow him to be housed in general population because of his seizures, rather than sending him to an appropriate facility where he would not need to be kept in segregation, and that Sayre endangered him by forcing him to shower in an inappropriate shower facility. The papers in support of the motion for summary judgment show that Sayre was not involved in the decisions about plaintiff's housing and that he took steps to provide plaintiff with a safe way to shower. The movants' papers thus are sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. The motion for summary judgment will be granted.