Case ID: f-appx_311/html/0011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jeffers Patrick DICKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark CHURRAY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 07-16952.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2009.
    
      Jeffers Patrick Dickey, Imperial, CA, pro se.
    Barry Alves, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of The California Attorney General Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jeffers Patrick Dickey appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a prison guard was deliberately indifferent to his health and safety when two inmates attacked him on the prison recreational yard. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, Fair Hous. Council v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dickey’s deliberate indifference claim because Dickey failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether the guard knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Dickey’s health or safety. See Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir.2002) (describing subjective and objective requirements for showing of deliberate indifference). Particularly given the speed with which the attack took place, the officer’s failure to protect Dickey from serious injury is not an indication of deliberate indifference.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.