Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. Crossroads Correctional Center

United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division

February 12, 2019

TIMOTHY WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
v.
CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL CENTER, FNU BERKEBILE; FNU FENDER; FNU BUSBY; FNU STEWART; and FNU WEAVER, Defendants.[1]

          ORDER

          John Johnston United States Magistrate Judge

         Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Pending is Defendants Crossroads Correctional Center (CCC), Berkebile, Fender, Busby, and Weaver's Motion for Summary Judgment based upon Plaintiff Timothy Wright's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies (Doc. 18) and Mr. Wright's Motion for Summary Judgment on the same issue (Doc. 27). The Court finds that Mr. Wright failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claims and as such Defendants' motion should be granted and Mr. Wright's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.

         Defendant Stewart was not served. While the Court has the duty to serve a complaint that passes the statutory screening requirements, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis still must provide accurate and sufficient information to effect service. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994)(overruled on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. When an IFP plaintiff fails to provide the Court with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, it is appropriate for the Court to sua sponte dismiss the unserved defendant. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422. Counsel for Defendants indicated on the July 3, 2018 Waiver of Service that he could not waive service for Defendant Stewart because he had been unable to contact Stewart. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Thereafter, Mr. Wright did not provide sufficient information to serve Defendant Stewart. It would be futile to allow Mr. Wright any further opportunity to provide service information Defendant Stewart in light of the Court's findings that Mr. Wright failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to all claims at issue. As such, this matter should be dismissed in its entirety.

         I. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

         The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). If the moving party makes a prima facie showing that summary judgment is appropriate, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. On summary judgment, all inferences should be drawn in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Id. at 159.

         By notice provided on August 16, 2018 (Doc. 22), Mr. Wright was advised of the requirements for opposing a motion brought pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998)(en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).

         II. ALLEGATIONS

         Mr. Wright's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) alleges he had a sexual relationship with a kitchen worker at CCC and as a result of this relationship, he was assaulted by another inmate. He contends Defendants' actions or omissions led to this assault and thereafter he was not provided adequate medical care. (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 21 at ¶ 1.)

         III. FACTS

         At all times that Mr. Wright was incarcerated at CCC, CCA's contract with the State of Montana mandated that CCC utilize Montana State Prison Procedure No. 3.3.3 (“MSP Procedure 3.3.3”) as the administrative grievance procedure at CCC. (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 21 at ¶ 5.) Defendants produced MSP Procedure 3.3.3 which became effective on May 13, 2009. (Doc. 20-1.) Mr. Wright argues that the procedure was updated on December 8, 2016 and he contends that is the applicable procedure. (Wright's Statement of Disputed Facts, Doc. 24 at 2, ¶ 3, MSP Procedure 3.3.3 revised December 8, 2016, Doc. 24-1.) Mr. Wright is complaining of events which occurred in March 2015 and as such he would have had to comply with the procedure in effect at that time -MSP Procedure 3.3.3 which became effective May 13, 2009 and not the procedure which was revised over a year after the incidents at issue. All references to MSP Procedure 3.3.3 herein refer to the May 2009 version of the policy (Doc. 20-1).

         In order to exhaust the grievance process at CCC, an inmate is required to submit an Inmate/Offender Informal Resolution Form within five working days of the event at issue. (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 21 at ¶ 7.) If an inmate is not satisfied with the informal resolution process and wishes to exhaust administrative remedies, he must file a formal grievance within five days of the response to his informal resolution form. (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 21 at ¶ 8.) If an inmate is not satisfied with the response to his formal grievance and wishes to exhaust administrative remedies, he must appeal the grievance decision to the Warden within five days of the response to the inmate's formal grievance. (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 21 at ¶ 9.) If the inmate is unsatisfied with the Warden's response and wishes to exhaust administrative remedies, he must appeal the Warden's decision to the MDOC Director. The MDOC Director's “response is final, and exhausts all administrative remedies available to the inmate through the inmate grievance program.” (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 21 at ¶ 10.)

         At various times, Mr. Wright has filed informal or other grievances related to his incarceration, however, he did not file any informal resolution or comply with any other step of the grievance procedure related to the March 2015 assault or medical care issues alleged in his Second Amended Complaint. (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 21 at ¶ 14.)

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.