Lomeli

MEMORANDUM

Derrick Lee Billups, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Lomeli was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we reverse and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment because it determined that Lomeli was not deliberately indifferent to Billups’ safety. However, Billups submitted evidence that he and his cellmate told Lomeli that there was a threat to Billups’ safety and that Billups told Lomeli that it could get “dangerous” if Billups was not moved to a different cell. Billups also submitted evidence that the only option Lomeli gave him was to continue insisting on a cell change and that Lomeli threatened to place him in administrative segregation if he continued to violate orders to return to his cell. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Billups, creates a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Lomeli acted with deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 ,…