Case Name: John Douglas HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-01
Citations: 700 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 17-15536
Parties: John Douglas HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 728–729

Head Matter:
John Douglas HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15536
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed November 1, 2017
John Douglas Hunter, Pro Se
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
John Douglas Hunter, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hunter's action because Hunter failed to allege facts sufficient to show that 'any defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health; mere negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
We reject as unsupported by the record Hunter's contention that the district judge was biased against him.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,