Joel Bush v. Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOEL BUSH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56872
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01217-SJO-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Joel Bush, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56872 2
to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bush failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with
culpable intent. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison
official cannot be found liable for failing to protect one inmate from another unless
“the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”).
Contrary to Bush’s contention, he was given fair notice of his obligations under the
summary judgment rule. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 1998)
(en banc).
Bush’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --