NICHOLAS PATRICK V. PETROFF, No. 17-16428 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICHOLAS PATRICK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16428 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00945-AWI-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* PETROFF; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Nicholas Patrick, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Patrick’s action because Patrick failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994) (setting forth elements of a failure-to-protect claim); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of a medical deliberate indifference claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 56768 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of an equal protection claim); Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing prisoners’ First Amendment right to send and receive mail). AFFIRMED. 2 17-16428

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.