ENTLER v. GONZALES DOC (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner John Thomas Entler appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Entler failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Entler’s safety. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a prison official’s deliberate indifference, an inmate must show that the official was aware of a risk to the inmate’s safety and that the official deliberately disregarded the risk.”); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[P]rison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk[.]”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.