2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-9-2009

Siddiq Aleem-x v. Ed Westcott

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-4690

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Siddiq Aleem-x v. Ed Westcott" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 471.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/471
CLD-316 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-4690

___________

SIDDIQ A. ALEEM-X, 

a/k/a Terrence Watson,

 Appellant

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EDWARD WESTCOTT

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-00570)

District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 17, 2009

Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 9, 2009)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Siddiq A. Aleem-x, a pro se prisoner, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in

the United States District Court for the District of Delaware claiming that defendant

Edward Wescott, a corrections officer, violated his constitutional rights by making
2

abusive and harassing statements and gestures to Aleem-x on three occasions. As relief,

Aleem-x sought, among other things, damages for emotional and psychological stress. 

The District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

and 1915A(b) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, explaining that while defendant’s alleged statements and actions could be viewed

as unprofessional, verbal abuse and harassment, without more, do not rise to the level of a

constitutional violation.

Aleem-x timely appealed and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because this appeal lacks any

arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

As the District Court explained, accepting Aleem-x’s allegations as true, he failed

to state a viable claim for relief. Verbal abuse of a prisoner, even of the lewd variety

alleged here, is not actionable under § 1983. See, e.g., McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287,

1291 n.3 (10th Cir. 2001) (explaining that “acts or omissions resulting in an inmate being

subjected to nothing more than threats and verbal taunts do not violate the Eighth

Amendment”); Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 1987) (“Defamation is

not a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause.”). We agree

with the District Court that any amendment to the complaint would be futile, and thus see

no error in the dismissal without leave to amend.

For these reasons, we will dismiss the appeal.