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.

Gunn v. Gordon

United States District Court, D. Utah

October 10, 2017

RICHARD Q. GUNN, Plaintiff,
v.
DENNIS GORDON et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          DAVID NUFFER CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff/inmate, Richard Q. Gunn, argues that Defendant, Utah State Prison (USP) Lt. Dennis Gordon, violated his right against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, he asserts that Defendant used excessive force and injured Plaintiff when handcuffing him. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is based on Plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The motion is supported by documents filed with Defendant's Martinez report including USP's grievance policy and copies of Plaintiff's grievances regarding his injuries allegedly stemming from Defendant's use of excessive force. After thoroughly considering all relevant pleadings and documents, the motion is granted.

         ANALYSIS

          I. Summary-Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant 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). Factual assertions may be supported by

citing to parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . ., admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or . . . showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Id. at 56(c)(1). A primary purpose of the summary-judgment rule “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).

         The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing “that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. This burden may be met merely by identifying portions of the record which show an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the opposing party's case. Johnson v. City of Bountiful, 996 F.Supp. 1100, 1102 (D. Utah 1998).

         Once the moving party satisfies its initial burden, “the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to make a showing sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of [the disputed] element.” Id.

         Rule 56 requires a nonmovant “that would bear the burden of persuasion at trial” to “go beyond the pleadings and ‘set forth specific facts' that would be admissible in evidence in the event of a trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998). The specific facts put forth by the nonmovant “must be identified by reference to an affidavit, a deposition transcript or a specific exhibit incorporated therein.” Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling, 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir. 1992). Mere allegations and references to the pleadings will not suffice. However, the Court must “examine the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 759 (10th Cir. 1999).

         II. Statement Of Undisputed Facts[1]

         • On November 17, 2010, Defendant approached Plaintiff to apply handcuffs and a side restraint so he could escort Plaintiff to a classroom. (Gordon Decl. ¶¶ 11-13.)

         • As a result of their physical interaction, Plaintiff's shoulder was reinjured. (Id. ¶¶ 17-22; Gunn Grievance 9908-83-559 (Aug. 6, 2012).)

         • USP's “Inmate Grievance Procedure” requires inmates to complete a three-level process to seek a remedy for a “grievable incident.” (State of Utah Dep't of Corrs. Institutional Operations Division Manual FD02/03.00 (Revised Dec. 20, 2011).

         • A Level One grievance must be filed “[w]ithin seven working days of an incident or seven working days from the time the inmate knew or should have ...


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.