John Harris v. JOE E. CAPPS, Inspector III;

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, and therefore denies Harris’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOE E. CAPPS, Inspector III; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35508
D.C. No. 6:08-cv-00258-HO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
John Harris, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials placed him in
disciplinary segregation in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have
FILED
JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35508 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289
F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
Harris failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
defendants deliberately exposed him to a serious risk of harm when they
temporarily transferred him to disciplinary segregation, because security protocols
were in place to protect inmates from one another. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable [for deliberate
indifference] unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate . . . safety.”).
Harris’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive, and his motion for
appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --