Kenneth Lopez v. Sue Hubbard
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Kenneth Lopez 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 his safety by not ordering that he be single-celled. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lopez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to him when they denied his request for single-cell status. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 843-44 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (explaining that 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).