Case Name: Michael WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P. DOAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-15
Citations: 308 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 07-15002
Parties: Michael WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P. DOAN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
Michael WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P. DOAN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-15002.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 15, 2009.
Michael Walters, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Alvin Gittisriboongul, Attorney General’s Office for the State of California, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Walters, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walters's failure-to-protect claim because Walters did not raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety by transporting him, a gang dropout, in the same vehicle as an inmate from the general population. 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 [for deliberate indifference] unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety").
Walters's 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.