Brown v. Utah County Jail

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ROBERT LOUIS BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UTAH COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11]
Case No. 2:24-cv-00200-DBB-CMR
Judge David Barlow
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (ECF 3).
Before the court is Defendant Utah County Jail’s (Defendant) Motion for Summary Judgment
(Motion) (ECF 11). The court also considered Plaintiff Robert Louis Brown’s (Plaintiff) Response
(ECF 16) and Defendant’s Request to Submit for Decision, wherein Defendant indicated it would
not submit a reply (ECF 19). Having carefully considered the relevant filings, the court finds that
oral argument is not necessary and will decide this matter based on the written memoranda. See
DUCivR 7-1(g). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the court
DENY Defendant’s Motion.
I. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on March 18, 2024, asserting that the Utah County Jail violated
his civil rights under the Fifth Amendment (ECF 1). The only named and served defendant is the
Utah County Jail (see id.). Defendant filed its Answer (ECF 6) on May 6, 2024. On October 30,
2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Scheduling Order (ECF 8), which the court granted after no
response was received from Plaintiff (ECF 9). The Scheduling Order set the deadline for fact
discovery to close on May 1, 2025, and the deadline for filing dispositive or potentially dispositive
Case 2:24-cv-00200-DBB-CMR Document 40 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 7

2
motions on October 1, 2025 (id.). Other than the Motion for Scheduling Order (ECF 8), no other
pre-trial motions were filed.
On May 5, 2025, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 11) seeking
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims and requesting dismissal of the Complaint for the
following reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case, (2) Plaintiff failed to state a claim, and
(3) Defendant is protected under qualified immunity (id. at 1–2). In support of the Motion, Plaintiff
filed only “Exhibit A (Jail Records)” (ECF 11-1). On July 21, 2025 (more than two months after
the filing of the Motion), the court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion (ECF 15),
which Plaintiff filed on July 25, 2025 (ECF 16).
II. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The court notes that Plaintiff’s Response neither disputes any of Defendant’s undisputed
facts nor cites to evidence disputing the facts recited by Defendant. See DUCivR 56-1(c)(3) (“A
party must restate only those specific facts the opposing party contends are genuinely disputed or
immaterial, providing a concise statement explaining why the fact is disputed or immaterial, and
cite to the evidence used to refute the fact.”). If the non-moving party does not dispute any
undisputed facts, the court may consider the moving party’s statement of undisputed facts as
undisputed for purposes of the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (“If a party fails to properly support
an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule
56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion[.]”).
Here, the court cannot consider Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (ECF 11 at 2–
4) as undisputed for purposes of the Motion. Defendant’s Motion was submitted without any
affidavit or declaration providing any foundation for the facts alleged in the Motion. Nor does
Case 2:24-cv-00200-DBB-CMR Document 40 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 7

3
Defendant address the admissibility of the only exhibit upon which its Motion relies.1 Furthermore,
in many instances, Defendant cites the Complaint but does not state that it will accept the facts
cited as true, which is concerning given that the Answer denies all allegations except one (ECF 6
at 1). As such, because there are too many unanswered questions in Defendant’s Statement of
Undisputed Facts, the court finds itself in the unusual situation of not being able to accept the facts
as undisputed and therefore will not consider them.
The court, however, for the sole purpose of providing general background information,
indicates that this case concerns Plaintiff’s allegations that he was booked into Utah County Jail
on February 21, 2024, and was wrongly placed on a suicide watch, in violation of the Fifth
Amendment (ECF 1).
III. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 	Summary Judgment Standard
“The court shall grant summary judgment if 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). “For there to be a ‘genuine’ dispute of fact, there must be more than a mere scintilla
of evidence; to avoid summary judgment, the evidence must be such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Aubrey v. Koppes, 975 F.3d 995, 1004 (10th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Rocky Mountain Prestress, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 960 F.3d 1255, 1259 (10th
Cir. 2020)). “The court may not grant summary judgment . . . unless the moving party has met its
1 See Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1160 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[T]o determine whether genuine issues of material
fact make a jury trial necessary, a court necessarily may consider only the evidence that would be available to the
jury’ in some form.” (quoting Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 452 F.3d 1193, 1199 (10th Cir.
2006))); Brown v. Perez, 835 F.3d 223, 1232 (10th Cir. 2016) (“The requirement is that the party submitting the
evidence show that it will be possible to put the information, the substance or content of the evidence, into an
admissible form.” (quoting 11 James Wm. Moore et. al., Moore’s Federal Practice–Civil § 56.91 (3d ed. 2015))).
Case 2:24-cv-00200-DBB-CMR Document 40 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 7

4
initial burden of production and demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” See
Cooper v. Monetary Inc., 2:12cv506 DAK, 2014 WL 1350274, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 28, 2014)
(citing Reed v. Nellcor Puritan Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1194 (10th Cir. 2002)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes his pleadings liberally and holds
them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, “[t]his liberal treatment is not without limits, and
‘this court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern
other litigants.’” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Garrett v. Selby,
Connor, Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
Defendant’s Motion seeks summary judgment indicating in the first sentence it is only
moving under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on Plaintiff’s claims and requests dismissal of
the Complaint for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case, (2) Plaintiff
failed to state a claim, and (3) Defendant is protected under qualified immunity (id. at 1–2).
Although Defendant’s Motion moves under Rule 56, the Motion conflates various legal
standards and argues legal theories that appear to not be applicable in this case. Accordingly, for
the reasons explained below, the court recommends that Defendant’s Motion be denied.
Defendant first argues that its Motion should be granted because Plaintiff has failed to
prosecute the case by failing to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37 (ECF 11 at 4) (“Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requirements to (1) timely disclose any witnesses and evidence, including documents; and (2)
Brown has failed to disclose a meaningful computation of damages.”). Defendant further
contends that because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case, Plaintiff “cannot make a prima
facie showing on his claim because he cannot present any evidence” (id. at 5). Defendant then
Case 2:24-cv-00200-DBB-CMR Document 40 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 7

5
explains that Plaintiff’s “only escape from Rule 37’s exclusions is to establish that his failure
‘was substantially justified or harmless,’” which Plaintiff allegedly cannot establish (id. at 5–10)
(quoting Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir.
1999)).
While Plaintiff appears to have not complied with Rules 26 and 37 or the court’s
Scheduling Order, dismissal for these reasons is not properly before the court in this Rule 56
Motion. Rather, such issues can be raised in a motion seeking dismissal as a sanction under Rule
37(b)(2), or perhaps under Rule 41(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) (“If a party ... fails to
obey an order to provide or permit discovery ... the court where the action is pending may issue
further just orders,” including “dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part.”); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order,
a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”).2 Even if the court were to
consider the Motion as seeking dismissal under Rule 37, Defendant’s Motion does not address
the correct legal standard. See Parent 1 Mother v. Park City Sch. Dist., No. 2:22-CV-00444-
DAK-JCB, 2025 WL 961525, at *3 (D. Utah Mar. 31, 2025) (“Where an exclusion of evidence
carries the force and effect of dismissal, courts should consider several factors before imposing
dismissal as a sanction, generally known as the Ehrenhaus factors.” (citing HCG Platinum, LLC
v. Preferred Prod. Placement Corp., 873 F.3d 1191, 1203 (10th Cir. 2017))). The Motion does
not address the Ehrenhaus factors or Rule 41. See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921
(10th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the court does not consider Defendant’s arguments pertaining to
failure to prosecute.
2 See also Parent 1 Mother v. Park City Sch. Dist., No. 2:22-CV-00444-DAK-JCB, 2025 WL 961525, at *1, n.1
(D. Utah Mar. 31, 2025) (noting that the defendant initially moved under Rule 56 but then later clarified dismissal
was sought pursuant to Rule 37, and the court also considered Rule 41 as opposed to Rule 56).
Case 2:24-cv-00200-DBB-CMR Document 40 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 7

6
Defendant also argues that the case should be dismissed because “Utah County Jail did
not violate Brown’s Fifth Amendment rights [], but even if it did, the Complaint should still be
dismissed due to qualified immunity” (ECF 11 at 10). Qualified immunity, however, does not
appear to be the correct legal analysis because Defendant’s Motion fails to address that Utah law
does not support a direct claim against county subdivisions, including jails. White v. Utah, 5 F.
App'x 852, 852–53 (10th Cir. 2001) (“In Utah, a statute expressly provides that a county may
sue or be sued . . . , but there is no statutory or case authority supporting a direct action against
a county’s subdivisions, including its jails.” (emphasis added) (citing Utah Code Ann. § 17–50–
302(2)(a))). Because the Utah County Jail is an entity that cannot be sued, and the only named
Defendant in this action, the court cannot adequately address Defendant’s arguments that the
Utah County Jail did not violate Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights or, in the alternative, that
the Utah County Jail is protected by qualified immunity.
Finally, the court finds that Defendant failed to comply with the rules governing the
submission of a Motion for Summary Judgment, as it failed to properly submit its evidence or
address the correct legal standards.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Because Defendant’s Motion failed adhere to the rule on submitting evidence, conflates
legal standards, and raises legal theories the court cannot adequately address, the court finds that
Defendant has not established that the undisputed facts show that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on Plaintiff’s claims.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF 11) be DENIED, and because the dispositive deadline has passed,
Case 2:24-cv-00200-DBB-CMR Document 40 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 7

7
Defendant be granted leave to submit a properly supported and procedurally correct motion within
28 days of the ruling on this Report and Recommendation.
NOTICE
Copies of the foregoing Report and Recommendation are being sent to all parties who are
hereby notified of their right to object. Within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy, any
party may serve and file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Failure to object may constitute a waiver of objections upon subsequent review.
DATED this 16 January 2026.
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case 2:24-cv-00200-DBB-CMR Document 40 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 7