From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patrick v. Martin

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 2, 2010
402 F. App'x 284 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-35530.

Submitted October 19, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed November 2, 2010.

Timothy Ray Patrick, Salem, OR, pro se.

Samuel Abraham Kubernick, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Ann Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 6:08-CV-00275-AA.

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Timothy Ray Patrick, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment based on qualified immunity); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on the deliberate indifference claim because Patrick failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant, a correctional officer, informed other inmates that Patrick was a snitch or sent an inmate to attack Patrick. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (discussing deliberate indifference standard); Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir. 2010) (a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation); see also Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 503 F.3d 947, 952 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2007) (a conclusory affidavit unsupported by facts is insufficient to raise a triable issue).

The district court properly dismissed the sexual harassment claim based on defendant's comments to Patrick, because verbal harassment is insufficient to state a section 1983 claim. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987).

Patrick's remaining contentions are un-persuasive.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Patrick v. Martin

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 2, 2010
402 F. App'x 284 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Patrick v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:Timothy Ray PATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Greg MARTIN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 2, 2010

Citations

402 F. App'x 284 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Valez v. Corr. Corp. of Am.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "has recognized that sexual harassment may constitute a cognizable claim…

Stensland v. City of Wilsonville

See Hocevar v. Purdue Frederick Co., 223 F.3d 721, 737 (8th Cir. 2000); cf. Ellison, 924 F.2d at 875 n.4.Id.;…