DocketNumber: 09-35508
Filed Date: 6/17/2010
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN HARRIS, No. 09-35508 Plaintiff -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 his42 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 under28 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