Rodolfo Martinez v. Stuart Sherman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODOLFO MARTINEZ, No. 22-16458 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01319-ADA- BAM v. STUART SHERMAN, Warden, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2023** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Rodolfo Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez failed to allege facts sufficient to establish deliberate indifference or supervisory liability. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (requirements for establishing deliberate indifference); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability). Martinez’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16458