Robert Bailey v. Patricia Leonhardt

MEMORANDUM

Former Nevada state prisoner Robert Alan Bailey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo judgment as a matter of law, Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on Bailey’s deliberate indifference, retaliation, and access-to-courts claims because the evidence at trial permitted only one reasonable conclusion — that defendants did not consciously disregard his serious medical needs, retaliate against him for filing grievances, or cause prejudice to existing or possible litigation. See id. (judgment as a matter of law analysis); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-56 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (deliberate indifference); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir.2009) (retaliation).

The district court properly dismissed several of Bailey’s claims before trial because they relied on criminal statutes that…