Opinion
No. 14-15985
03-02-2015
RONNELL RAY HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. F. FOULK, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00329-CKD MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Hill consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
California state prisoner Ronnell Ray Hill appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant failed to protect him from an inmate assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hill's action because Hill failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of an inmate assault. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) ("[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment . . . unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety[.]"); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
AFFIRMED.