Barry Patterson v. Nurse Grant , 577 F. App'x 681 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON, No. 12-17842
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02364-PGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NURSE GRANT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Barry Northcross Patterson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Patterson’s
deliberate indifference claim against Grant because Patterson failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Grant consciously disregarded an
excessive risk to Patterson’s health in treating Patterson following an incident
where he was placed in restraints. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (prison officials
are deliberately indifferent only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk of
serious harm to inmate health).
The district court properly dismissed Patterson’s claims against the other
defendants because Patterson “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief [could] be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); see also Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless
Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[D]ismissal for failure to state a
claim is ‘proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of
sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.’ ” (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17842