[No. 23176-3-III. Division Three. August 25, 2005.]
COREY WINSTON , Appellant , v. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent .
[1] Prisons - Inmate Violence - Liability of State - Test - Presumption. The State is not liable for injury to a prison inmate inflicted by another inmate unless prison officials (1) knew or had good reason to anticipate that such an injury would be inflicted and (2) were negligent in failing to prevent the injury. Prison officials are presumed to perform their duty to protect inmates from violence. The question of whether prison officials performed their duty is one of fact for a jury only when there is evidence tending to rebut the presumption.
[2] Prisons - Civil Rights - Deprivation - Inmate Violence - Negligence of Prison Officials. A state prison inmate's action for deprivation of civil rights may not be based solely on the negligent failure of prison officials to protect the inmate from injury inflicted by another inmate. Due process protections are not triggered by a lack of due care causing unintended harm.
[3] Judgment - Summary Judgment - Continuance - Additional Discovery - Denial - Grounds. The denial of a CR 56(f) motion for the continuance of a summary judgment proceeding to allow further discovery is appropriate when (1) the requesting party does not provide a good reason for the delay in obtaining the desired evidence, (2) the requesting party does not state what evidence will be established through the additional discovery, or (3) the desired evidence will not raise a genuine issue of material fact.[4] Judgment - Summary Judgment - Continuance - Additional Discovery - Review - Standard of Review. A trial court's denial of a CR 56(f) motion for a continuance in a summary judgment proceeding to allow further discovery is reviewed for an
62 Winston v. Dep't of Corr. Aug. 2005
130 Wn. App. 61
abuse of discretion. A trial court does not abuse its discretion unless it bases its decision on untenable or unreasonable grounds.
[5] Courts - Administration of Justice - Authority of Trial Court. A trial court has the authority to administer its affairs to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of its docket.
[6] Judgment - Summary Judgment - Continuance - Additional Discovery - Discovery Delays - Lack of Good Cause. A continuance of a summary judgment proceeding to allow further discovery may not be justified if the party seeking the continuance fails to show good cause for the delay in conducting discovery according to the court's scheduling order deadlines.
Nature of Action: A prison inmate sought damages from the State for its alleged failure to prevent a fellow inmate from assaulting and injuring him.
Superior Court: After denying the inmate's motion for a continuance of summary judgment proceedings to conduct further discovery, the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 03-2-00761-1, Salvatore F. Cozza, J., on June 8, 2004, entered a summary judgment in favor of the State.
Court of Appeals: Holding that the State is not liable for the inmate's injury because the inmate failed to show that prison officials had any reason to believe that the inmate was in danger of being assaulted and that the trial court properly denied the inmate's motion to continue the summary judgment proceedings on the basis that he failed to show good cause for his delay in conducting discovery, the court affirms the judgment.
Russell B. Juckett, Jr. , for appellant .
Robert M. McKenna , Attorney General, and Carl P. Warring and Catherine Hendricks , Assistants, for respondent .
¶1 SCHULTHEIS, J. - Corey Winston appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his action against the State for its alleged failure to prevent a fellow inmate from
Aug. 2005 Winston v. Dep't of Corr. 63
130 Wn. App. 61
attacking him and the denial of his motion to continue summary judgment. Mr. Winston has not shown that prison officials had any reason to believe he was in danger of being assaulted and he failed to show a good reason why he had not earlier attempted to obtain evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2 Mr. Winston, an inmate at the Airway Heights Correction Center, was assaulted by another inmate on September 3, 1999. He suffered a right orbital blowout fracture that resulted in permanent visual impairment. Mr. Winston sued the State for negligence in its failure to protect him and for violations of his civil rights.
¶3 The State moved for summary judgment. Mr. Winston moved to continue the summary judgment to conduct depositions. He argued that because the State had withheld discovery he received only after the motion was filed, he needed time to explore the matters raised in the material. The trial court denied the motion to continue. The court granted the State's summary dismissal.
ANALYSIS
a. Summary judgment motion
¶4 When reviewing an order of summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Wilson v. Steinbach , 98 Wn.2d 434 , 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). Like the trial court, we must consider all facts submitted and all reasonable inferences from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and we will uphold the order only if, from all the evidence, reasonable
64 Winston v. Dep't of Corr. Aug. 2005
130 Wn. App. 61
persons could reach but one conclusion. Wilson , 98 Wn.2d at 437 .
[1]¶5 In order to hold the State liable for injury to one inmate inflicted by another inmate, there must be proof of knowledge on the part of prison officials that such an injury will be inflicted, or good reason to anticipate such, and then there must be a showing of negligence on the part of these officials in failing to prevent the injury. Kusah v. McCorkle , 100 Wash. 318 , 323, 170 P. 1023 (1918). The prison official is presumed to have performed his duty. Riggs v. German , 81 Wash. 128 , 131, 142 P. 479 (1914). But when there is evidence tending to rebut that presumption, the question is one of fact for the jury. Eberhart v. Murphy , 113 Wash. 449 , 453, 194 P. 415 (1920).
¶6 Here, Mr. Winston failed to show that prison officials had any reason to believe he would be attacked. Mr. Winston's own deposition refutes the claim he now asserts that the atmosphere at the prison was fraught with racial tension and that he had previous problems with his assailant. Clerk's Papers at 114-15, 268-69. Summary dismissal of this claim was appropriate.
[2]¶7 Mr. Winston also claims the prison violated his civil rights. However, a state prison inmate may not base a federal civil rights action on prison officials' mere negligent failure to protect him from another inmate in that the protections of the due process clause are not triggered by a lack of due care causing unintended harm. Davidson v. Cannon , 474 U.S. 344, 348, 106 S. Ct. 668, 88 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1986); Berg v. Kincheloe , 794 F.2d 457, 462 (9th Cir. 1986). Because Mr. Winston failed to show the prison officials had any reason to believe he was in danger, he cannot make the necessary showing for a civil rights claim.
b. Motion to continue
[3]¶8 A trial court may continue a summary judgment hearing if the nonmoving party shows a need for additional time to obtain additional affidavits, take depositions, or
Aug. 2005 Winston v. Dep't of Corr. 65
130 Wn. App. 61
conduct discovery. CR 56(f). "The trial court may deny a motion for a continuance when (1) the requesting party does not have a good reason for the delay in obtaining the evidence, (2) the requesting party does not indicate what evidence would be established by further discovery, or (3) the new evidence would not raise a genuine issue of fact." Butler v. Joy , 116 Wn. App. 291 , 299, 65 P.3d 671 (2003) (citing Tellevik v. Real Prop. Known as 31641 W. Rutherford St ., 120 Wn.2d 68 , 90, 838 P.2d 111, 845 P.2d 1325 (1992)).
[4]¶9 We review a trial court's decision on a request to continue the summary judgment for abuse of discretion. Colwell v. Holy Family Hosp. , 104 Wn. App. 606 , 615, 15 P.3d 210 (2001); Coggle v. Snow , 56 Wn. App. 499 , 504, 784 P.2d 554 (1990). A trial court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on untenable grounds or unreasonable grounds. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker , 79 Wn.2d 12 , 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
[5, 6]¶10 Here, the motion to continue summary judgment was denied on two bases: (1) because the discovery Mr. Winston sought could have been accomplished earlier, given the scheduling order deadlines, he failed to show good cause for the delay in conducting the discovery; and (2) he relied on what he hoped to reveal through additional discovery rather than identify evidence that would give rise to a genuine issue of fact. We need only reach the first reason as it is a sufficient basis to deny a continuance. See Butler , 116 Wn. App. at 299 .
¶11 The judge outlined the history of the case on the record. The suit was initially filed in Thurston County in August 2002 and transferred to Spokane County in January 2003. Upon its transfer, a Spokane County judge adopted a case schedule instituting significant dates including discovery cutoff and trial dates, and the last date to amend the schedule. The judge explained to counsel that it was important to observe the schedule in order to process the hundreds of civil cases and prevent docketing chaos. The judge then expressed his reluctance to revise the order in the last 30 days before trial, especially in light of the fact
66 Winston v. Dep't of Corr. Aug. 2005
130 Wn. App. 61
that Mr. Winston should have completed the discovery in the 2 years preceding the motion.
¶12 Mr. Winston focuses on the State's failure to provide discovery. He argues that if the State had not forwarded to him responses to his production requests on the eve of summary judgment, his request for the depositions would have been timely. But Mr. Winston did not satisfy the trial court's inquiry as to why he had not completed his discovery before that time.
¶13 A trial court has the authority to administer its affairs to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of its docket. Woodhead v. Discount Waterbeds, Inc. , 78 Wn. App. 125 , 129, 896 P.2d 66 (1995). Mr. Winston has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
¶14 We affirm the trial court's summary dismissal of Mr. Winston's action against the State and the denial of his motion to continue summary judgment.\
SWEENEY , A.C.J., and BROWN, J., concur.