Gregory Garrett Brown v. W. VICTOR, Inmate FK-7293

BLD-223 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3899
___________
GREGORY GARRETT BROWN,
Appellant
v.
W. VICTOR, Inmate FK-7293; TERRENCE POLE, Inmate -Cell 1014-On GD -Quad;
PHILIP QUINN, Inmate-Cell-1009- On GD Quad; MR. GREEN, Inmate-Cell-1010 on
GD Quad- Moved to observation on or around June 4, 2008; MR. HOUSLEY, Inmate-
Cell-2016- On GD Quad; JOHN DOE, Inmate-Cell-1003-ON GD Quad; JOHN DOE,
Inmate-Cell-2001-On GD Quad; H. ANDREWS, Inmate-Cell-2005-On GD Quad
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-08-01178)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon
____________________________________
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 IOP. 10.6
June 18, 2009
Before: MCKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(filed: July 10, 2009 )
_________
OPINION
_________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
Gregory Garrett Brown appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his civil
complaint. For the following reasons, we will dismiss this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
In June 2008, Brown, an inmate currently incarcerated at SCI-Huntingdon, filed a
pro se complaint alleging that guards at that institution ordered other inmates to verbally
abuse him in order to induce him to commit suicide. Brown alleged that the defendants’
actions violated the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Brown also appeared to allege
a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment. Upon the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and over Brown’s
objections, the District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Brown
filed a timely notice of appeal from that order.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An appeal must be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The District Court correctly determined that the CAT is not self-executing, and,
therefore, does not create judicially-enforceable rights unless it is first given effect by
implementing legislation. Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 132 n.7 (3d Cir. 2005).
Brown, however, does not point to legislation which would provide him with a cause of
action and cannot do so inasmuch as the domestic laws implementing the treaty do not

-- 2 of 3 --

provide civil redress for torture within the United States. See Renkel v. United States,
456 F.3d 640, 644-45 (6th Cir. 2006). To the extent that Brown alleged that the inmates’
actions constituted cruel and unusual punishment, that claim is meritless as verbal abuse
alone cannot be the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224
F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000). Finally, the District Court properly dismissed the
complaint without giving Brown an opportunity to amend since allowing Brown to amend
his complaint would have been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
In sum, because Brown’s appeal lacks arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
3

-- 3 of 3 --