Bradley Vandyke v. D. K. SISTO, Warden;

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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRADLEY VANDYKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. K. SISTO, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17380
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-03120-JLQ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Bradley VanDyke, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety by failing to protect him
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17380 2
from gang violence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because VanDyke
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994) (a prison official cannot be found liable for failing to protect one
inmate from another “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to inmate health or safety”); Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 462 (9th Cir. 1986)
(a dispute over the existence of arguably superior alternatives to the action taken
by prison officials will not defeat summary judgment).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --