Case ID: f-appx_453/html/0709-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sue HUBBARD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-17364.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 11, 2011.
    Kenneth Lopez, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Kathleen Jane Williams, Matthew Ross Wilson, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Lopez's request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Kenneth Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety by not ordering that he be single-celled. 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 may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lopez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to him when they denied his request for single-cell status. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 843-44, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (explaining that a prison official is not liable for failing to protect one inmate from another unless the prisoner shows that he was housed under conditions that posed a substantial risk of serious harm, and that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s safety).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.