Timothy Bertram v. C. Sizelove

MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Timothy Bertram appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have juris diction 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 Bertram failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Sizelove was deliberately indifferent to Bertram’s safety or was responsible for assigning Bertram to an upper bunk. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate ... safety.”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.2011) (explaining causal requirement under § 1983); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4) (explaining that an affidavit or declaration opposing summary judgment must be based on “personal knowledge” and “set out facts that would be admissible in evidence”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying…