Opinion
No. 15-15952
01-28-2016
GUILLERMO C. TRUJILLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STU SHERMAN, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01401-BAM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Trujillo consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
California state prisoner Guillermo C. Trujillo appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Trujillo's failure-to-protect claim because Trujillo failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety"); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
The district court properly dismissed Trujillo's claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a "constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure." Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.