Sammy Lee Morris v. G.a. Gonzales;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMMY LEE MORRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
G.A. GONZALES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55580
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-02378-MMA-
AGS
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55580
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 of 2 --