Filed: Dec. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNIS PATTERSON, AKA Dennis No. 19-35362 Wallace Patterson, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00442-RMP Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* KENDLE ALLEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and WILLIAM BITTON; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11,
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNIS PATTERSON, AKA Dennis No. 19-35362 Wallace Patterson, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00442-RMP Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* KENDLE ALLEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and WILLIAM BITTON; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, ..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS PATTERSON, AKA Dennis No. 19-35362
Wallace Patterson,
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00442-RMP
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
KENDLE ALLEN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
WILLIAM BITTON; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Patterson, AKA Dennis Wallace Patterson, appeals pro se from the
*
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).
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional claims and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order.
Allen v. Bayer Corp. (In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig.),
460
F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint
for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Patterson’s claims in the fifth amended
complaint against defendants Patrick Monasmith, Allen Neilson, Lech Radzimski,
Timothy Rasmussen, and Jessica Taylor-Reeves because these defendants are
entitled to judicial or prosecutorial immunity. See Garmon v. County of Los
Angeles,
828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (application of absolute
prosecutorial immunity); Duvall v. County of Kitsap,
260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir.
2001) (application of judicial immunity).
The district court properly dismissed Patterson’s deliberate indifference and
ADA claims in the fifth amended complaint against defendants William Bitton,
MA Coon, Aaron William Smith Davis, Jeffrey Wayne Evans, Wayne Anthony
Gagnon, Jessica Garza, J Pedersen, Billy Reece, J Stearns, and Justin Young
because Patterson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See
2 19-35362
Gordon v. County of Orange,
888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth
elements of a Fourteenth Amendment medical care claim by a pretrial detainee);
Simmons v. Navajo County,
609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The ADA
prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for
disability.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Patterson’s
action because Patterson failed to comply with the district court’s order to appear
for his in-person deposition despite a warning that continued noncompliance would
result in dismissal of his action. See In re PPA Prods. Liab.
Litig., 460 F.3d at
1227-29 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for
failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th
Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal
should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a
clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Appellees’ motion to strike Patterson’s affidavit, set forth in the answering
brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-35362