Opinion
No. 18-15178
08-23-2018
MARTIN WARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. BITTER, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01302-DAD-SAB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Martin Ware appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ware's action because Ware failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment "unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety"); Labatad v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing requirements for deliberate indifference to safety claim).
AFFIRMED.