Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0659-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bevin GRAHAM, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HARLEY, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17774.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
    Bevin Graham, Sr., Sylmar, CA, pro se.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Bevin Graham, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with a fall he sustained when exiting a prison van. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Graham’s action because Graham failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants were deliberately indifferent when they did not offer Graham assistance when he exited the van. See Fanner v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]”); see also id. at 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (“[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence.”).

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