ACEVES AKA v. JAIME (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Armando Abreu Aceves, aka Armando Abreu, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) ); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Abreu’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim because Abreu failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate ․ safety”).

The district court properly dismissed Abreu’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Abreu failed to allege facts sufficient to show a causal connection between his protected conduct and the adverse action. See Watison, 668 F.3d at 1114 (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim in prison context).

AFFIRMED.