CURLIN PENNICK, III V. JOE WILLIAMSON, No. 13-35120 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 29 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CURLIN PENNICK, III, No. 13-35120 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05971-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* JOE WILLIAMSON, Cook, Stafford Creek Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Washington state prisoner Curlin Pennick, III, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the denial of kosher meals for over two days during Passover violated his First * 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). Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Williamson reasonably relied on the Passover meals-list which mistakenly omitted Pennick. See Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a prison official may be entitled to qualified immunity where he has a reasonable, but mistaken, belief about the facts or about what the law requires in a given situation); see also Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229 (1991) (per curiam) ( The qualified immunity standard gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. (citation omitted)). Pennick s motion to supplement the record on appeal, filed on June 10, 2013, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-35120

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.