Case Name: Joseph MORENO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elizabeth WALSH; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-14
Citations: 568 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 13-15438
Parties: Joseph MORENO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elizabeth WALSH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
Joseph MORENO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elizabeth WALSH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15438.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014.
Filed April 14, 2014.
Joseph Moreno, Manassas, VA, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former Nevada state prisoner Joseph Moreno 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 in failing to protect him from being sexually assaulted by another inmate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Moreno failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to Moreno from a sexual assault by another inmate. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (holding that "a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment . unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . safety"); Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir.1986) (summary judgment was proper where plaintiff had not provided evidence demonstrating that defendants "had any reason to believe" that plaintiff would be attacked).
Moreno's contention that the district court's improperly denied his motion for relief from retaliation is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.