Jeffrey A. Pate v. Martin Garcia

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).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY A. PATE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARTIN GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17228
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01201-FCD-
DAD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jeffrey A. Pate appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
FILED
MAR 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 08-17228 2
indifference to his safety while he was a pretrial detainee at the Sacramento County
Main Jail. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the
uncontroverted evidence showed that Garcia had no control over Pate’s placement
in the housing unit in which Pate was attacked, nor was there evidence that Garcia
knew of the risk to Pate’s safety before the attack. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the
official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . . .”);
Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (providing that an official can
be liable under § 1983 only “‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that
causes the deprivation’” at hand (citation omitted)).
Pate’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --