Walter Wilkerson, Iii v. RANDY GROUNDS, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER WILKERSON, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17599
D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01342-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Walter Wilkerson, III, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his safety. 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
FILED
DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even
assuming that the possible collapse of a prison bench was an objectively serious
risk to inmate safety, Wilkerson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded such a risk. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (claim of deliberate indifference
requires showing that “the official [knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to
inmate . . . safety”); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057, 1060 (negligence is not sufficient
to state a deliberate indifference claim).
We do not address Wilkerson’s contentions regarding the doctrine of
qualified immunity, which the district court relied upon as an alternative basis to
grant summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
12-17599 2

-- 2 of 2 --