Gary Sargent v. Paul Simoneta

MEMORANDUM

Gary L. Sargent appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sargent’s claims because defendants did not have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to assist Sargent or protect him from the acts of third parties. See id. at 971-72 ; see also Campbell v. Wash. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 671 F.3d 837 , 842-43 (9th Cir.2011) (neither state’s knowledge of an individual’s situation nor its expressions of intent to help give rise to a duty); Morgan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2007) (Fourteenth Amendment typically does not impose duty on state to protect individuals from third parties).

We are not persuaded by Sargent’s contention that the district court violated his rights by holding an improper ex parte hearing because Sargent was provided notice of the hearing through defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which listed the date, time, and location for…