FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL CENTENO-CASTELLANOS, No. 10-15492
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00573-DCB-
PSOT
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Daniel Centeno-Castellanos appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of his
Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo the district court’s dismissal pursuant to the screening provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Centeno-Castellanos
failed to allege any facts in his second amended complaint suggesting that any
defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 837 (1994) (to state a claim for deliberate
indifference, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw
the inference”; negligence is insufficient).
Centeno-Castellanos’s remaining contentions, including those concerning
appointment of counsel, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15492