Rodney Garrott v. Eldon Vail

MEMORANDUM ** 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.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, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811, (1994) (claim of deliberate indifference requires showing that “the official [knew] of and disregarded] 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, 101 Wash.2d 226, 677 P.2d 166, 168 (1984) (elements of negligence claim); Winston v. Dep’t of Corr., 130 Wash.App. 61, 121 P.3d 1201, 1202 (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”). 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. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.