Dennis Gieck v. Seleaina Thomas
Dennis Michael GIECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Seleaina Ann THOMAS; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Atsushi W. Tashima, Stephen S. Trott
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS MICHAEL GIECK, No. 08-57049 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02719-IEG-JMA v. MEMORANDUM * SELEAINA ANN THOMAS; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2009 ** Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Michael Gieck, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process violations arising from his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). placement in the Outpatient Housing Unit (“OHU”) at Calipatria State Prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the due process claims because Gieck did not raise a triable issue as to whether his four-day placement in the OHU imposed an “atypical and significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim because Gieck did not raise a triable issue as to whether the treatment provided by Nurse Practitioner Thomas “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims because Gieck did not produce evidence suggesting that defendants placed him in the OHU and reduced his medication in reprisal for exercising his First Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(listing necessary elements of a retaliation claim).
/Research 2 08-57049 Gieck’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
/Research 3 08-57049