Armando Aceves v. G. Jaime

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 12, 2018
• Docket: 18-15392
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO ABREU ACEVES, AKA No. 18-15392 Armando Abreu, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00715-DAD- Plaintiff-Appellant, BAM

v. MEMORANDUM* G. JAIME, Associate Warden at Kern Valley State Prison; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Armando Abreu Aceves, aka Armando Abreu,

appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his safety. We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)

(dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Abreu’s Eighth Amendment deliberate

indifference claim because Abreu failed to allege facts sufficient to show that

defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm

to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official

is deliberately indifferent only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate . . . safety”).

The district court properly dismissed Abreu’s First Amendment retaliation

claim because Abreu failed to allege facts sufficient to show a causal connection

between his protected conduct and the adverse action. See Watison, 668 F.3d at

1114 (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim in prison context).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-15392