ARMANDO ABREU ACEVES, AKA Armando Abreu v. G. JAIME, Associate Warden at Kern Valley State Prison;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO ABREU ACEVES, AKA
Armando Abreu,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
G. JAIME, Associate Warden at Kern
Valley State Prison; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15392
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00715-DAD-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Armando Abreu Aceves, aka Armando Abreu,
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his safety. We have
* 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
JUL 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15392
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668
F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
(dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Abreu’s Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim because Abreu failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm
to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official
is deliberately indifferent only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate . . . safety”).
The district court properly dismissed Abreu’s First Amendment retaliation
claim because Abreu failed to allege facts sufficient to show a causal connection
between his protected conduct and the adverse action. See Watison, 668 F.3d at
1114 (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim in prison context).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --