Michael Doktoreztk v. S. Morales
Michael DOKTOREZTK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. MORALES, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DOKTOREZTK, No. 11-55657 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01288-JM-WVG v. MEMORANDUM* S. MORALES, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2012** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Doktoreztk appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety in connection with an assault by other inmates. 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Doktoreztk failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Morales knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (claim of deliberate indifference requires showing that “the officer [knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider a declaration by another inmate because the inmate lacked personal knowledge of the events at issue. See Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 416, 419 (9th Cir. 2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and explaining that a court may consider declarations for purposes of summary judgment only if they are made on personal knowledge and sets out facts that would be admissible in evidence).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-55657