John Williams, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Harms, Officer; D.r. Smith, Lieutenant; R. Ecklind,c.o.;--ferguson;--hill, C/o;--daniels, C/o; P.b. Long,correctional Counselor; Charles Marshall,warden;--williams, Correctional Officer;--south,correctional Officer, Defendants-appellees, 139 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

California state prisoner John Williams appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with two disciplinary hearings and that his safety was compromised by the release of information from his central file. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.¹ 

With respect to Williams's claims that his constitutional rights were violated during the course of two disciplinary hearings and the administrative appeals that followed, the district court did not err by dismissing these claims because they are not cognizable under section 1983. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997).

With respect to Williams's claim for deliberate indifference to his safety, Williams failed to sufficiently allege that defendant Ferguson revealed confidential information from Williams's central file to other inmates. Further, even if Ferguson had done so, Williams did not state how the release of this information threatened his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994) (holding that prisoner must establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to serious threats to prisoner's safety). Accordingly, because Williams failed to cure these deficiencies in his amended complaint, after being directed by the district court to do so, the district court did not err by dismissing Williams's deliberate indifference claim.

AFFIRMED.