Gallegos v. Newsom

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 25-6386
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS, No. 25-6386 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01004-DC-SCR Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of California; JEFF McCOMBER; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dena M. Coggins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Benjamin Robert Gallegos appeals pro se from the

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

* 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). constitutional claims concerning prison safety. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gallegos’s action because Gallegos

failed to allege facts sufficient to show any defendant was deliberately indifferent

to a substantial risk of serious harm to Gallegos. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 837 (1994) (holding that, to establish Eighth Amendment liability, a plaintiff

must show that a defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate

health or safety).

Gallegos’s motion (Docket Entry No. 6) for appointment of counsel and

motion (Docket Entry No. 8) for injunctive relief are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-6386