FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH MORENO, No. 13-15438
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00179-LRH-
WGC
v.
ELIZABETH WALSH; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Former Nevada state prisoner Joseph Moreno appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his safety in failing to protect him from being
sexually assaulted by another inmate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
*
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).
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 Moreno
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of a
substantial risk of serious harm to Moreno from a sexual assault by another inmate.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (holding that “a prison official
cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment . . . unless the official knows
of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”); Berg v. Kincheloe, 794
F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir. 1986) (summary judgment was proper where plaintiff had
not provided evidence demonstrating that defendants “had any reason to believe”
that plaintiff would be attacked).
Moreno’s contention that the district court’s improperly denied his motion
for relief from retaliation is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15438