William Shelton v. Brent Reinke
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Idaho state prisoner William Shelton appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to his safety. 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 because Shelton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to Shelton from an assault by his cellmate. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 830-31, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official is not liable for failing to protect one inmate from another unless the prisoner shows that he was housed under conditions that posed a substantial risk of serious harm, and that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s safety); Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir.1986) (summary judgment was proper where plaintiff had not provided evidence demonstrating that defendants “had any reason to believe” that plaintiff would be attacked).