Antonio Gutierrez v. Max Williams

Ninth Circuit

Antonio Gutierrez v. Max Williams

505 F. App'x 659

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 2013

Docket12-35158

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 F. App'x 659 (Antonio Gutierrez v. Max Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antonio Gutierrez v. Max Williams, 505 F. App'x 659 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Antonio Alejandro Gutierrez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. *660 § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by selling him defective shoes in the prison commissary. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Watson v. Weeks, 436 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2006). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gutierrez’s Eighth Amendment claim because Gutierrez failed to allege facts showing a “sufficiently serious” deprivation or that defendants acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (outlining elements of an Eighth Amendment violation).

Dismissal of Gutierrez’s due process claim was proper because Gutierrez has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Oregon state law. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per cu-riam) (“[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy.”); see also Or.Rev.Stat. § 30.260 et seq.

Dismissal of Gutierrez’s equal protection claim was proper because Gutierrez failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants acted with the intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his membership in a protected class. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2005); see also Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir.1999) (indigent prisoners are not a suspect class).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Antonio Alejandro Gutierrez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. *660 § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by selling him defective shoes in the prison commissary. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Watson v. Weeks, 436 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2006). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gutierrez’s Eighth Amendment claim because Gutierrez failed to allege facts showing a “sufficiently serious” deprivation or that defendants acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (outlining elements of an Eighth Amendment violation).

Dismissal of Gutierrez’s due process claim was proper because Gutierrez has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Oregon state law. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per cu-riam) (“[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy.”); see also Or.Rev.Stat. § 30.260 et seq.

Dismissal of Gutierrez’s equal protection claim was proper because Gutierrez failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants acted with the intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his membership in a protected class. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2005); see also Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir.1999) (indigent prisoners are not a suspect class).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 F. App'x 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonio-gutierrez-v-max-williams-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack