Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00340/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00340-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY BEARDEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEVIN SUTO, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0340 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2, 6, 7)

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), filed this pro se civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants, SVSP employees,

verbally harassed him. By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim

under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was

Case 3:05-cv-00340-MMC Document 9 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff complains of verbal abuse by the defendants. Allegations of verbal

harassment and abuse fail to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman

v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997); see, e.g., Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092

(9th Cir. 1996), amended 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding “disrespectful and

assaultive comments” by prison guard insufficient to implicate Eighth Amendment);

Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 138 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding allegations of vulgar

language directed at prisoner insufficient to state constitutional deprivation under § 1983). 

Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant Kevin Suto laughed at plaintiff’s history of sexual

abuse, that defendant Scarvazino made lewd comments to him, that defendant Delanie called

him an “asshole” and that defendant Kale did nothing to stop these “abuses.” Such verbal

harassment, without more, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See id. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the above-entitled action is DISMISSED for failure to state

a cognizable claim for relief. In light of the dismissal, the requests for a temporary

restraining order and permanent injunction are DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 6, and 7. 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2005

 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00340-MMC Document 9 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2