Bryan Ransom v. A. Scribner

MEMORANDUM

Bryan Edwin Ransom, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Warden Scribner acted with deliberate indifference by not requiring the proper sanitization of barbering tools after use by each inmate. 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 affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Scribner because Ransom failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Scribner knew of any problems concerning the sanitization of barbering tools during the relevant time period. See id. at 1057 (prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (to establish a supervisor’s liability under § 1983, an inmate must demonstrate that the official “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ransom’s untimely motion to extend the…