Dennis Michael Gieck v. Seleaina Ann Thomas;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS MICHAEL GIECK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SELEAINA ANN THOMAS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-57049
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02719-IEG-JMA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Michael Gieck, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First
Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process violations arising from his
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

/Research 08-57049 2
placement in the Outpatient Housing Unit (“OHU”) at Calipatria State Prison. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the due process
claims because Gieck did not raise a triable issue as to whether his four-day
placement in the OHU imposed an “atypical and significant hardship on [him] in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
484 (1995).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Eighth
Amendment claim because Gieck did not raise a triable issue as to whether the
treatment provided by Nurse Practitioner Thomas “was medically unacceptable
under the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive
risk to the prisoner’s health.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation
claims because Gieck did not produce evidence suggesting that defendants placed
him in the OHU and reduced his medication in reprisal for exercising his First
Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(listing necessary elements of a retaliation claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

/Research 08-57049 3
Gieck’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --