United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division
JOHNSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 39.) Plaintiff Jeremy Braulick, a pro se
prisoner, filed a Complaint on November 3, 2017 alleging four
counts against various named defendants. (Complaint, Doc. 2.)
The only remaining claims are Mr. Braulick's allegations
raised in Counts III and IV of the Complaint against
CoreCivic and Nurse Didier. CoreCivic and Nurse Didier filed
an Answer to Counts III and IV on July 19, 2018 denying
liability. (Doc. 15.)
considered the parties' arguments and submission, Mr.
Braulick has established a genuine dispute as to material
facts regarding his retaliation claim alleged in Count III
against Nurse Didier. Nurse Didier's Motion for Summary
Judgment will be denied. CoreCivic has established that there
is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the merits of
Mr. Braulick's Monell claims regarding his
medications as alleged in Count IV of the Complaint.
CoreCivic's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
judgment is appropriate when the moving party “shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Under summary judgment practice,
“[t]he moving party initially bears the burden of
proving the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627
F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The moving party may
accomplish this by “citing to particular parts of
materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes
of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials” or by showing that such materials
“do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine
dispute, or that the adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the
moving party need only prove that there is an absence of
evidence to support the non-moving party's case.”
Oracle Corp., 627 F.3d at 387 (citing
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Summary judgment should be entered,
“after adequate time for discovery and upon motion,
against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to
establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” See Celotex, 477
U.S. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning
an essential element of the nonmoving party's case
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
Id. at 323. In such a circumstance, summary judgment
should be granted, “so long as whatever is before the
district court demonstrates that the standard for entry of
summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is
moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden
then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). In attempting to establish the
existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not
rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings but is
required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of
affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support
of its contention that the dispute exists. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586
n.11. “A plaintiff's verified complaint may be
considered as an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment
if it is based on personal knowledge and sets forth specific
facts admissible in evidence.” Lopez v. Smith,
203 F.3d 1122, 1132 n.14 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The
opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention
is material, i.e., a fact “that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law, ” and that
the dispute is genuine, i.e., “the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv.,
Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626,
630 (9th Cir. 1987).
evaluating the evidence to determine whether there is a
genuine issue of fact, ” the court draws “all
inferences supported by the evidence in favor of the
non-moving party.” Walls v. Cent. Costa Cnty.
Transit Auth., 653 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 2011). It is
the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual
predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See
Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 810 F.2d 898, 902
(9th Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the
opposing party “must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 (citations
notice provided on March 4, 2019 (Doc. 43), Mr. Braulick 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).
Nurse Didier is a registered nurse (“R.N.”) at
the Crossroads Correctional Center (“Crossroads”)
located in Shelby, Montana. (SUF at ¶ 5.) Mr. Braulick
was being monitored for thyroid concerns in the
Crossroads' clinic and saw Nurse Didier for blood draws
to determine his thyroid levels. (SUF at ¶ 6.) Mr.
Braulick contends that Nurse Didier only drew his blood on
three occasions. (SDF at ¶ 6.)
February 5, 2015, Mr. Braulick submitted an informal
resolution form complaining that on January 28, 2015 at 4:00
a.m., Nurse Didier did not wear gloves while conducting his
blood draw. (SUF at ¶ 8; Informal Resolution Form, Doc.
2-1 at 42-43.) At that blood draw, Mr. Braulick made clear
that he did not want Nurse Didier to touch him with her
ungloved free hand. (SUF at ¶ 8.)
Didier contends she was not aware of the February 2, 2015
grievance submitted by Mr. Braulick until this lawsuit was
filed. (SUF at ¶ 8.) Mr. Braulick contests this
statement because the response to the February 5, 2015
grievance states, “I will advise my law draw nurse on
standard precautions when drawing labs.” He argues that
once Nurse Didier was advised about standard lab draw
precautions by her supervisor she would have known it was Mr.
Braulick who complained about her. In addition, Mr. Braulick
testified that he made it clear to Nurse Didier at the time
of the incident that he had an issue with her ungloved hands.
(SDF at ¶ 8.)
September 22, 2015, Nurse Didier conducted another blood draw
on Mr. Braulick. (SUF at ¶ 10.) On that same day, Mr.
Braulick submitted an informal resolution form in which he
Today at about 3:35 a.m. I had a labdraw and the nurse who
took my blood got an attitude with me. She began by asking me
if I put in my previous grievance about her “Did you
put I wipe my fingers with the alcohol pad before touching
your vein.” I didn't answer her as I didn't
like her tone. She proceeded to touch my vein with her bare
finger before inserting the needle. I said, “no you
need to put your gloves on before touching my vein.”
She got upset and put the glove on than proceeded to put the
needle in when I stopped her and said, “she needed to
rewipe my vein.” She than ripped open an alcohol swab
package and began aggressively and violently swabbing my arm
and jabbed the needle in my arm and moved the needle to a
cockeyed position to my vein causing it to tear my vein
inside my arm and for it to bleed out inside my arm causing
the area ...