Case Name: Tovia LAFAELE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P. LARGENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-21
Citations: 255 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 04-16818
Parties: Tovia LAFAELE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. P. LARGENT, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 245–245

Head Matter:
Tovia LAFAELE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. P. LARGENT, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-16818.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
Filed Nov. 21, 2007.
Tovia LaFaele, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Constance Picciano, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Tovia LaFaele appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendant caused unsanitary housing conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a prisoner's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district properly concluded LaFaele failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, because LaFaele failed to allege that Largent's administrative decisions were made in disregard to an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) ("a prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it").
LaFaele's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.