MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Daniel Centeno-Castellanos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Centeno-Castellanos failed to allege any facts in his second amended complaint suggesting that any defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (to state a claim for deliberate indifference, “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”; negligence is insufficient).

Centeno-Castellanos’s remaining contentions, including those concerning appointment of counsel, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.