Sweet

MEMORANDUM **

Four Salinas Valley State Prison officials, Hernandez, Monteiro, Mandeville, and Moore (“Defendants”), appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by prisoner Michael Sweet. Sweet, appearing pro se, alleged that Defendants deliberately disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm by re-housing him in a facility where he had previously been injured in altercations with other prisoners. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to consider a denial of qualified immunity. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir.2001). We review de novo, Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Sweet established a material issue of fact as to whether he had alerted the officers to the danger to his safety. See Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir.2002) (requiring that facts be taken in the light most favorable to the prisoner). If, as Sweet alleges, he made the prison officials aware of his fear of being attacked by the same gang members who had previously targeted…