N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M . G., Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, De fe nda

nt, And C HARLES E. SAM UELS, Dire c tor of the Fe de ra l B ure a

u of Prisons; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 13-55764

D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02956-H-WVG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 6, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FISHER , B EA, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED
MAY15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.De fe nda nts–a ppe lla nts C ha rle s E. Sa m ue ls, Fe rnando A. Arriola , a nd R obe rt Garc ia a ppe a l the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the ir m o tion to dism i ss pla i ntiff–a

ppe lle e M .G.’ s B iv e ns c la im s a g a i nst the m . Se e Biv e ns v . Six Unk now n N ame d Age nts of Fe d. Bure a u of N arc otic s , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, se e Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 671–72 (2009), a nd re vie w d

e nov o , se e Dunn v
. C

astro , 621 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th C ir. 2010). B e c a

use the c om

pla int fa ils to a l le ge nonc onc lusory fa c ts from whic h we
c an infe r de fe nda

nts’ subje c tive knowle d ge tha t a substa ntia l risk of se rious ha

rm to M
. G . e xiste d, we re v e rse the distric t c ourt’ s orde r and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings.

“ To survive a

m otion to dism

iss, a c om pla i nt m ust c onta in suffic ie nt fa c tua l
m atte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to ‘ sta te a c la im to re lie f that is pla

usible on its fa c e .’ A
c la im ha s fa c i a l pla

usibility whe n the pla i ntiff ple a ds fa c t ua l c onte nt tha

t a llows the
c ourt to dra

w the re a sona

ble infe re nc e tha

t the de fe nda

nt is lia ble for the
m isc o nduc t a lle g e d.” Iqbal , 556 U.S. a t 678 (c ita

tion omitte d). T

o sta te a Biv e ns
c la im a ga inst a prison of fic ia l who ha s a l le ge dly

fa ile d to prote c t inm at e s from viole nc e at the ha

nds of othe r prisone rs, a pla intif f m ust a lle ge fa c ts, whic h, if prove n , would show (1) the inm ate wa s “ inc arc e rate d unde r c onditions posing a substa ntia l risk of se rious ha

rm ,” an d (2) the of

fic i a l a c te d with “ de libe ra te indif fe re nc e to inm ate he a lth or sa fe ty .” Farme r v

. Br e nnan , 51 1 U.S. 825, 834
2(1994) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d); s e e Simmons v
. N av ajo C nty
. , 609 F .3d 101 1 , 1017 (9th C i r . 2010). To e sta blish de libe ra te indiffe re nc e , a pla intiff m

ust show the offic ia l wa s “ aware of fa c ts from whic h the infe re nc e c ould be drawn tha t
a substa ntia l risk of se rious ha

rm e x ists,” and “ dr[e w] the infe re nc e .” Farme r , 511 U.S. at 837. M .G. c la im s de fe n da

n t s Arriola and Ga

rc i a 1 we re de libe ra te ly

indiffe re nt to the s ubsta ntia l risk he fa c e d whe n he wa s house d with his alle ge d a ssa ila nt, Ha rold Ford, a viole nt c rim ina l. To ple a d de libe ra te indiffe re nc e , M .G. m u s t a lle ge
nonc onc lusory

fa c ts from whic h we c an infe r de fe nda nts Arriola

and Ga rc ia
a c tua lly kne w of the d a

nge r M .G. fa c e d. Se e Iqbal , 556 U.S. a t 678, 686–87; Farme r , 511 U.S. a

t 837. This the

c om pla int fa ils to do. It fa

ils to a lle ge fa c ts from whic h we c an infe r , for e x am ple , tha t de fe n da nts kne w M .G

., a nonviole nt de ta ine e , wa s house d with Ford, a viole nt de ta i ne e , or tha

t de fe nda nts kne wof prior inc ide nts of prison viole nc e arising out of a

fa ilure to se gre gate viole nt a nd nonviole nt prisone rs, a

n d thus we re subje c tive ly aware of a

substa ntia l risk of ha

rm to M
. G
. C f. S tarr v . Bac a , 652 F .3d 1202, 1216 (9th C ir . 201 1 ) (infe rring she rif f’ s knowle dge of substa

n tia l risk of se rious ha

rm to S ta rr from a lle g at ions tha

t the

1 Sam ue ls c la im s he is not na

m e d a s a de fe nda nt in M .G .’ s Biv e ns c a

use of a c tion; tha

t se c tion of thec om

pla int na m e s “ De fe nda

nts AR RIOLA, GAR C IA, and DOE De fe nda

nts Only .” It se e m s the distric t c ourt m ista ke nly inc lude d Sam ue ls in its disc ussion of M .G

.’ s Biv e ns c la im s. 3she rif

f re c e ive d notic e of num e rous inc ide nts in whic h inm ate s ha d be e n kille d or injure d be c a use of the c ulpa

ble a c tions of prison gua

rds a nd a lle g at ions tha

t the she rif f re c e ive d notic e , in se ve ra l re p orts, of sy ste m atic proble m s in thec ounty ja ils unde r his supe rvision tha t re sulte d in thosede aths a nd injurie s). W

e c annot infe r Arriola

and Ga rc ia spe c ific a lly

kne w a bout thesubsta

n tia l risk of ha

rm to M .G . ba se d sole ly

on the ir positions a

nd the a l le gat ion the y

we re on “ high a le rt” of inm ate viole nc e in fe d e ra l prisons ge ne ra lly
. W e re ve rse the orde r of the distric t c o urt a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings, inc l u ding theopportunity to a m e nd the c om

pla int if inform ation is obta ine d in disc o v e ry

on M .G.’ s pe nding FTC A c la i m a g a inst theUnite d State s that would support a B iv e ns c la im
. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

4