Rodolfo Martinez v. STUART SHERMAN, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STUART SHERMAN, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16458
D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01319-ADA-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rodolfo Martinez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth
Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
* 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 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16458
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez
failed to allege facts sufficient to establish deliberate indifference or supervisory
liability. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (requirements for
establishing deliberate indifference); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.
2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
Martinez’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 8) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --