Alberto Winffel v. A. POMAZAL; RONALD E. BARNES, Warden

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTO WINFFEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
A. POMAZAL; RONALD E. BARNES,
Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15202
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01709-MCE-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alberto Winffel 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 a fall he sustained in a prison shower.
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15202 2
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 because Winffel
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the
official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”);
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the requirements
for establishing supervisory liability).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --