Martin Ware v. M. BITTER, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN WARE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M. BITTER, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15178
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01302-DAD-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Martin Ware appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing 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.
Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017)
* 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).
FILED
AUG 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15178
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ware’s action because Ware failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (prison official cannot
be found liable under the Eighth Amendment “unless the official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”); Labatad v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing requirements for deliberate
indifference to safety claim).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --