NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODOLFO MARTINEZ, No. 22-16458

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01319-ADA-

BAM

v.

STUART SHERMAN, Warden, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Rodolfo Martinez appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth

Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez

failed to allege facts sufficient to establish deliberate indifference or supervisory

liability. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (requirements for

establishing deliberate indifference); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.

2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

Martinez’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 8) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-16458