Domingo Montar-Morales v. Bisson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 12, 2023
• Docket: 22-35591
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOMINGO MONTAR-MORALES, No. 22-35591

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00776-TSZ

v. MEMORANDUM* BISSON, Officer, Monroe Correctional Complex,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

JOHN P. PICKERING, Officer, Monroe Correctional Complex; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

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

* 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). Washington state prisoner Domingo Montar-Morales appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a

failure-to protect claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Cortez v. Skol, 776 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Bisson

because Montar-Morales failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether Bisson was deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to Montar-

Morales’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison

official is deliberately indifferent only if the prison official “knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; 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”).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-35591