John Harris v. Joe Capps ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 17 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOHN HARRIS,                                     No. 09-35508
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:08-cv-00258-HO
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JOE E. CAPPS, Inspector III; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    John Harris, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s
    judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging prison officials placed him in
    disciplinary segregation in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have
    *
    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, and therefore denies Harris’s request for oral argument.
    See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 
    289 F.3d 623
    , 626 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
    Harris failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
    defendants deliberately exposed him to a serious risk of harm when they
    temporarily transferred him to disciplinary segregation, because security protocols
    were in place to protect inmates from one another. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable [for deliberate
    indifference] unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
    inmate . . . safety.”).
    Harris’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive, and his motion for
    appointment of counsel is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     09-35508
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-35508

Filed Date: 6/17/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021