Case ID: f-appx_95/html/0909-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marcellus Alexander GREENE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. P.L. VASQUEZ; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 03-15679.
    D.C. No. CV-00-00051-DFL/GGH.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 26, 2004.
    Marcellus Alexander Greene, California State Prison, Represa, CA, pro se.
    Michael G. Lee, Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Marcellus Alexander Greene appeals pro se the district court’s judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Robi v. Reed, 173 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that Greene’s allegations of verbal abuse did not state an actionable claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir.1996), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir.1998). Further, Greene’s speculation that he was assaulted because defendant Vasquez revealed his back injury to other inmates is insufficient to survive summary judgment. See Nelson v. Pima Community College, 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that “mere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.