Losee v. Preece

District Court, D. Utah·Decided August 31, 2021·No. 2:18-cv-00195·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

KARL LOSEE, MEMORANDUM DECISION & Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS v.

SGT. PREECE et al., Case No. 2:18-CV-195-TC

Defendants. District Judge Tena Campbell

Plaintiff, Karl Losee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2021). His Third Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 35), asserts claims of cruel and unusual punishment against Defendants Preece and Despain. Defendants move for dismissal, asserting Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state claims upon which relief may be granted. The Court disagrees and therefore denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants must therefore move beyond their motion to dismiss to the next stage of litigation. The Court now orders Defendants to file a Martinez report1 and dispositive motion as follows:

1 See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (approving district court’s practice of ordering prison administration to prepare report to be included in pleadings in cases when prisoner has filed suit alleging constitutional violation against institution officials). In Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005 (10th Cir. 1987), the Tenth Circuit explained the nature and function of a Martinez report, saying: Under the Martinez procedure, the district judge or a United States magistrate [judge] to whom the matter has been referred will direct prison officials to respond in writing to the various allegations, supporting their response by affidavits and copies of internal disciplinary rules and reports. The purpose of the Martinez report is to ascertain whether there is a factual as well as a legal basis for the prisoner's claims. This, of course, will allow the court to dig beneath the conclusional allegations. These reports have proved useful to (A) If Defendants wish to assert the affirmative defense of Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a grievance process, Defendants must, (i) within 90 days, prepare and file a Martinez report limited to the exhaustion issue; and, (ii) within 120 days, file a separate summary judgment motion, with a supporting memorandum. (B) If Defendants choose not to rely on the defense of failure to exhaust and wishes to pierce the allegations of the Complaint, Defendants must, (i) within 90 days, prepare and file a Martinez report addressing the substance of the complaint; and,

(ii) within 120 days, file a separate summary judgment motion, with a supporting memorandum. (C) If Defendants wish to seek relief otherwise contemplated under the procedural rules (e.g., requesting an evidentiary hearing), Defendants must file an appropriate motion within 90 days of filing their answer. Plaintiff is notified that Plaintiff may, within 30 days of its filing, respond to a Martinez report if desired. Plaintiff is further notified that Plaintiff must, within 30 days of its filing, respond to the summary-judgment motion. Plaintiff is finally notified that, when Defendants move for summary judgment, Plaintiff may not rest upon the mere allegations in the complaint. Instead, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), to survive a motion for summary

determine whether the case is so devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal without trial. Id. at 1007. judgment Plaintiff must allege specific facts, admissible in evidence, showing that there is a genuine issue remaining for trial. ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. (Doc. No. 40.) (2) Defendants must within 20 days file an answer and within 90 days file a Martinez report. (3) When served with a Martinez report, Plaintiff may submit a response within 30 days of the report’s filing date. (4) Defendants must within 120 days file a summary-judgment motion. (5) When served with a summary-judgment motion, Plaintiff must submit a response within 30 days of the motion’s filing date. For Plaintiff's information and convenience, the Court has attached the procedural rules governing summary-judgment practice. (6) NO TIME EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. DATED this 31st day of August, 2021. BY THE COURT:

United States District Court

Fed Rule of Civil Procedure 56

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Losee v. Preece, (D. Utah 2021).

Losee v. Preece (Losee v. Preece) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Martinez v. Aaron
570 F.2d 317 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Gee v. Estes
829 F.2d 1005 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)