Rodney Garrott v. Eldon Vail , 549 F. App'x 669 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY L. GARROTT, No. 12-35704
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00391-LRS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELDON VAIL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Rodney L. Garrott appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrott’s claim
alleging that defendants failed to protect him from inmate assault because Garrott
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to Garrott’s safety. 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”); see
also Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[M]ere
allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary
judgment.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrott’s state law
negligence claim because Garrott failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants had knowledge of or good reason to believe that Garrott
would be assaulted by another inmate. See Pedroza v. Bryant, 677 P.2d 166, 168
(Wash. 1984) (elements of negligence claim); Winston v. Dep’t of Corr., 121 P.3d
1201, 1202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (to hold prison officials liable for injury to one
inmate inflicted by another inmate, the inmate must show “knowledge on the part
of prison officials that such an injury will be inflicted, or good reason to anticipate
such”).
2 12-35704
To the extent that Garrott attempts to raise an access-to-courts claim, we do
not consider it because it was raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Garrott’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-35704