Case Name: Donald WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.S. EVANS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-22
Citations: 473 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 11-15384
Parties: Donald WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.S. EVANS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
Donald WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.S. EVANS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15384.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 22, 2012.
Donald Williams, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Phillip Arthur, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Donald Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide him with safe showering facilities. 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 Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference regarding shower safety and the provision of shower mats. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health and safety); id. at 1060 ("Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.").
Williams' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.