GREGORY BROWN V. M. LOPEZ, No. 14-15188 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GREGORY L. BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-15188 D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00124-GSA v. MEMORANDUM* M. LOPEZ, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted December 9, 2014*** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Gregory L. Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ** *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Amendment violations arising from an assault by other inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for Lopez and Lantia because Brown failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Brown’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s 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”); see also Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[M]ere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment.”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 n.3 (9th Cir. 1989) (to raise a triable dispute of fact a declarant’s statement must be based on personal knowledge). The district court properly dismissed Brown’s claims against Clark and 2 14-15188 Reynoso because Brown failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Brown. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining supervisory liability under § 1983); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2005) (to state a failure-to-protect claim, plaintiff must make sufficient factual averments “to raise an inference that the prison officials acted with deliberate indifference, or knew that [plaintiff] faced a substantial risk of serious harm, and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 3 14-15188
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
