Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a Nevada state prisoner, David N. Dunkle, appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, where he alleged deliberate indifference by prison officials after other inmates threw rocks at him. The appellate court, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reviewed the dismissal de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, focusing on whether Dunkle adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference. The court upheld the dismissal, determining that Dunkle failed to allege that the officer, Tallmen, was aware of the risk of harm from other inmates, as required by the precedent set in Farmer v. Brennan. Furthermore, the court found that intervention by Tallmen was unnecessary since the inmates had dispersed post-incident. Dunkle's additional allegations of perjury and a 'code of silence' among prison officials were deemed insufficient to show deprivation of a constitutional right, consistent with McDade v. West. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, and per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, this disposition is not intended for publication or future citation.
Legal Issues Addressed
Claims of Perjury and Code of Silencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims regarding perjury and a 'code of silence' by prison officials were dismissed due to the lack of demonstration of a deprivation of a constitutional right.
Reasoning: Dunkle’s claims regarding perjury and a 'code of silence' by prison officials were also dismissed because they did not demonstrate a deprivation of a constitutional right, following the precedent set in McDade v. West.
Deliberate Indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the plaintiff did not adequately state a claim for deliberate indifference because he failed to allege that the officer was aware of the risk posed by other inmates.
Reasoning: Dunkle failed to allege that Tallmen was aware that inmates would throw rocks at him, which is a necessary condition to claim deliberate indifference, as established in Farmer v. Brennan.
Non-Publication and Non-Citation of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not eligible for publication or citation in future cases as per the applicable circuit rules.
Reasoning: The court’s decision is affirmed, and this disposition is not suitable for publication nor can it be cited in future cases per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Requirement for Intervention by Prison Officialssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the officer was not required to intervene after the incident because the inmates had already dispersed.
Reasoning: Additionally, since the inmates dispersed after the incident, Tallmen was not required to intervene.