Case Name: Walter WILKERSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-10
Citations: 548 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 12-17599
Parties: Walter WILKERSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 467–467

Head Matter:
Walter WILKERSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-17599.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 10, 2013.
Walter Wilkerson, III, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Matthew Marvin Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
California state prisoner Walter Wilkerson, III, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. 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, even assuming that the possible collapse of a prison bench was an objectively serious risk to inmate safety, Wilkerson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded such a risk. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (claim of deliberate indifference requires showing that "the official [knew] of and disregarded] an excessive risk to inmate . safety"); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057, 1060 (negligence is not sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim).
We do not address Wilkerson's contentions regarding the doctrine of qualified immunity, which the district court relied upon as an alternative basis to grant summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.