Carl E. Perkins v. Pelican Bay State Prison, and Charles D. Marshall

42 F.3d 1401 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Carl E. PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON, Defendant, and Charles D. Marshall, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-15550. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 14, 1994. * Decided Nov. 22, 1994. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Carl E. Perkins, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against Charles D. Marshall and several other defendants (collectively "defendants"). Perkins alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 "A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo to determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there exist any genuine issues of material fact and…