BARRY PATTERSON V. NURSE GRANT, No. 12-17842 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 30 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-17842 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02364-PGR v. MEMORANDUM* NURSE GRANT; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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) ( [D]ismissal 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. 2 12-17842
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
