SAMMY MORRIS V. G.A. GONZALES, No. 20-55580 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 25 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAMMY LEE MORRIS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-55580 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-02378-MMAAGS v. MEMORANDUM* G.A. GONZALES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2021** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Sammy Lee Morris appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal * 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). 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 dismissed Morris’s action because Morris failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to Morris by writing up and processing a rules violation report, or ordering a mental health assessment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 836 (1994) (for an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety claim, the plaintiff must show the deprivation alleged was “objectively, sufficiently serious” and the defendant was deliberately indifferent to a “substantial risk of serious harm” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Morris’s “motion state claim with merit” (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 20-55580

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.