Rickie Hill v. C. Rowley

MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Rickie L. Hill appeals pro. se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § .1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Hill’s failure-to-protect and equal protection claims based on defendant Rowley’s comments to Hill because verbal harassment is insufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under § 1983. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[V]erbal harassment or abuse ... is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court concluded that. Hill failed to state sexual harassment and equal protection claims based on defendant Rowley’s “gripping” of Hill’s buttocks. However, Hill sufficiently alleged that Rowley committed an unwanted touching of Hill’s person and did so intentionally, to discriminate against him to state sexual…