The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-17364•Kenneth Lopez v. Sue Hubbard;
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). Accordingly, Lopez’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH LOPEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUE HUBBARD; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17364
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01928-GEB-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 27, 2011***
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kenneth Lopez appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
FILED
OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-17364 2
were deliberately indifferent to his safety by not ordering that he be single-celled.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802,
811 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lopez failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to him when they
denied his request for single-cell status. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
837, 843-44 (1994) (explaining that a prison official is not liable for failing to
protect one inmate from another unless the prisoner shows that he was housed
under conditions that posed a substantial risk of serious harm, and that the prison
official acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s safety).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.