Ronald E. Walton v. J. Butler;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RONALD E. WALTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. BUTLER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17480
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00479-GEB-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Ronald E. Walton, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
Amendment and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17480 2
§ 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 on Walton’s
deliberate indifference claim because Walton failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants were aware of a risk to his safety. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (to state a claim for deliberate
indifference, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw
the inference”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walton’s due
process claim because Walton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether he was improperly denied procedural protections during his rules
violation hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570 (1974) (explaining
circumstances where a prisoner might be entitled to assistance during disciplinary
hearings).
Walton’s contentions concerning retaliation are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --