United States District Court, E.D. Washington
NATHAN J. HUELLE, Plaintiff,
BERRI GORSUCH, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GORSUCH’S MOTION FOR
O. RICE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is Defendant Berri Gorsuch’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27). The motion was submitted for
consideration without a request for oral argument. Plaintiff
Nathan J. Huelle has not filed a response to the motion. The
Court has reviewed the briefing, the record, and files
herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed
below, the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is
short, the instant suit concerns Plaintiff Nathan J.
Huelle’s broken arm and Defendant Berri Gorsuch’s
alleged failure to ensure Plaintiff received proper medical
care while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Klickitat County
Jail. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that Gorsuch was
aware that Plaintiff needed treatment for his arm but failed
to do so in violation of his rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment, and that this caused permanent damage
to his arm. ECF No. 1 at 9, 11.
has moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim
against him. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion
for summary judgment, despite being provided a notice of the
underlying requirements for responding to a motion for
summary judgment. ECF No. 31 (Rand v. Rowland, 154
F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) type notice).
movant is entitled to summary judgment if the movant
demonstrates “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is
“material” if it might affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue is
“genuine” where the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Id. The moving party bears the “burden of
establishing the nonexistence of a ‘genuine
issue.’” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 330 (1986). “This burden has two distinct
components: an initial burden of production, which shifts to
the nonmoving party if satisfied by the moving party; and an
ultimate burden of persuasion, which always remains on the
moving party.” Id.
deciding, the court may only consider admissible evidence.
Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764,
773 (9th Cir. 2002). As such, the nonmoving party may not
defeat a properly supported motion with mere allegations or
denials in the pleadings. Liberty Lobby, 477
U.S. at 248. At this stage, the “evidence of
the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in [the non-movant’s]
favor.” Id. at 255. However, the “mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence” will not defeat
summary judgment. Id. at 252.
Gorsuch moves the Court for summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s claim based on several contentions: that
Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of
limitations, that Gorsuch did not have any involvement in the
alleged underlying injury, that Plaintiff did not exhaust his
administrative remedies, and that Gorsuch is entitled to
qualified immunity. ECF No. 27 at 2-3. Plaintiff has not
responded or otherwise submitted any evidence to the Court
supporting his claim.
Plaintiff is asserting a claim against Gorsuch under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Gorsuch can only be liable under a
Section 1983 claim if Gorsuch was personally involved in the
alleged violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights:
Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of
personal participation by the defendant. Fayle v.
Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). A supervisor
is only liable for constitutional violations of his
subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed
the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act
to prevent them. There is no respondeat superior liability
under section 1983. Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile
Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680–81 (9th Cir.
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Court finds that Gorsuch is entitled to summary judgment
because Plaintiff has failed to present any admissible
evidence that Gorsuch was personally ...