Case ID: f-appx_577/html/0681-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barry Northcross PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nurse GRANT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-17842.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 30, 2014.
    Barry Northcross Patterson, Florence, AZ, pro se.
    Claudia Acosta Collings, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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