Court Opinion

ID: 9406743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 17:01:02.973191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.251374
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 3 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODOLFO MARTINEZ,                               No. 22-16458

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01319-ADA-
                                                BAM
 v.

STUART SHERMAN, Warden,                         MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                     Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Rodolfo Martinez appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth

Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez

failed to allege facts sufficient to establish deliberate indifference or supervisory

liability. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (requirements for

establishing deliberate indifference); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.

2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

      Martinez’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 8) is

denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-16458