Blanco v. Gomez

Full title: Nick A. BLANCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. GOMEZ, CDC Director; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 28, 2001

17 F. App'x 654 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

17 Fed.Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2001) Nick A. BLANCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. GOMEZ, CDC Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-15181. D.C. No. CV-96-05255-OWW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 28, 2001

Submitted August 13, 2001 ^*.

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Assaulted state prison inmate brought § 1983 claim against prison officials, alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Oliver W. Wanger, J., granted summary judgment for defendants, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) claims arising from two assaults were time-barred, and (2) claim arising from third assault failed to establish that named defendants had power or authority to determine to which facility inmate would be transferred.

Affirmed.

Page 655.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Nick A. Blanco, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1117, 120 S.Ct. 1979, 146 L.Ed.2d 808 (2000) (statute of limitations); Barnett v.. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (summary judgment), and we affirm.

With respect to the assaults that occurred in 1985 and 1986, the district court properly concluded that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. See Fink, 192 F.3d at 916.

With respect to the assault that occurred in 1996, the district court properly concluded that Blanco failed to establish that the named defendants had the power or authority to determine to which facility he would be transferred. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978).

AFFIRMED.