Case ID: f-appx_50/html/0378-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy CLARKE, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. Virginia HAWORTH, sued in her individual and official capacities, Defendant — Appellee.
    No. 01-56031.
    D.C. No. CV-97-00574-MRP/AJW.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2002.
    Decided Nov. 7, 2002.
    Before BALDOCK, KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court properly granted Appellee Virginia Haworth’s (“Haworth”) motion for summary judgment. Appellant Timothy Clarke (“Clarke”) admitted that Haworth’s alleged comment that Clarke was an informant was not the actual cause of the assaults against him. Since Clarke failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Haworth’s alleged deliberate indifference was the actual and proximate cause of his injuries, summary judgment was appropriate. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED.

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The record indicates an issue of material fact regarding causation. There was evidence that both assailants mentioned the alleged “snitch” rumor, that Clarke had never been assaulted before the rumor and was assaulted twice subsequent to it, and that the ostensible causes of the fights were pretexts for inmates who did not want to share a cell with a “snitch.” At least as to the second assault, the injuries were more serious than de minimis. I would reverse. 
      
       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.