Siddiq A. Aleem-X, a/k/a Terrence Watson v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EDWARD WESTCOTT On Appeal from the United States District…

CLD-316 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4690
___________
SIDDIQ A. ALEEM-X,
a/k/a Terrence Watson,
Appellant
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EDWARD WESTCOTT
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-00570)
District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 17, 2009
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG , Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 9, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Siddiq A. Aleem-x, a pro se prisoner, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware claiming that defendant
Edward Wescott, a corrections officer, violated his constitutional rights by making

-- 1 of 2 --

2
abusive and harassing statements and gestures to Aleem-x on three occasions. As relief,
Aleem-x sought, among other things, damages for emotional and psychological stress.
The District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A(b) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, explaining that while defendant’s alleged statements and actions could be viewed
as unprofessional, verbal abuse and harassment, without more, do not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation.
Aleem-x timely appealed and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because this appeal lacks any
arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
As the District Court explained, accepting Aleem-x’s allegations as true, he failed
to state a viable claim for relief. Verbal abuse of a prisoner, even of the lewd variety
alleged here, is not actionable under § 1983. See, e.g., McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287,
1291 n.3 (10th Cir. 2001) (explaining that “acts or omissions resulting in an inmate being
subjected to nothing more than threats and verbal taunts do not violate the Eighth
Amendment”); Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 1987) (“Defamation is
not a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause.”). We agree
with the District Court that any amendment to the complaint would be futile, and thus see
no error in the dismissal without leave to amend.
For these reasons, we will dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --