Bradley VANDYKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 486 F. App'x 669

MEMORANDUM Bradley VanDyke, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety by failing to protect him from gang violence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Togu- chi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted

summary judgment because VanDyke 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, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official cannot be found liable for failing to protect one inmate from another “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”); Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 462 (9th Cir.1986) (a dispute over the existence of arguably superior alternatives to the action taken by prison officials will not defeat

summary judgment). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.