William Gonzalez v. James Yates;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Gonzalez 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES YATES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16770
D.C. No. 1:05-cv-01039-SMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 27, 2011***
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Gonzalez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
FILED
OCT 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16770 2
Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,
447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez’s claim that defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights because Gonzalez failed to allege facts
suggesting that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[D]eliberate indifference” is
evidenced only when “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate health or safety[.]”).
We do not consider Gonzalez’s claims not adequately raised on appeal. See
Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217
(9th Cir. 1997).
Gonzalez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --