RODNEY GARROTT V. ELDON VAIL, No. 12-35704 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 11 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODNEY L. GARROTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-35704 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00391-LRS v. MEMORANDUM* ELDON VAIL; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Washington state prisoner Rodney L. Garrott appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. * 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). 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrott s claim alleging that defendants failed to protect him from inmate assault because Garrott failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Garrott s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, (1994) (claim of deliberate indifference requires showing that the official [knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety ); see also Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 1996) ( [M]ere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment. ). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrott s state law negligence claim because Garrott failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants had knowledge of or good reason to believe that Garrott would be assaulted by another inmate. See Pedroza v. Bryant, 677 P.2d 166, 168 (Wash. 1984) (elements of negligence claim); Winston v. Dep t of Corr., 121 P.3d 1201, 1202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (to hold prison officials liable for injury to one inmate inflicted by another inmate, the inmate must show knowledge on the part of prison officials that such an injury will be inflicted, or good reason to anticipate such ). 2 12-35704 To the extent that Garrott attempts to raise an access-to-courts claim, we do not consider it because it was raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Garrott s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted. AFFIRMED. 3 12-35704
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.
