NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RODNEY LOUIS GARROTT, No. 09-35225
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05053-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R. ARCHER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Rodney Louis Garrott appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations arising from an incident of verbal harassment. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136,
1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
(9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v.
Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Garrott’s action, after twice giving him
notice of the complaints’ deficiencies and providing leave to amend, because
Garrott did not allege facts sufficient to show that defendants deprived him of any
constitutional right. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.
1987) (“Verbal harassment or abuse . . . is not sufficient to state a constitutional
deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and
brackets omitted)).
Garrott’s remaining contentions, including, to the extent he properly raised it
below, an equal protection claim, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-35225