Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Champion's request for an extension of time to respond to the screening letter is granted, and Champion's request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Page 993.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
N.A. Champion, III, appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant's failure to assign him to a lower bunk caused him injury. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S. C.§ 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Champion's action because his allegation that he informed defendant that a doctor had ordered him housed in a lower bunk failed to demonstrate that defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to his health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Moreover, further amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.