Case Name: Thomas HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. SANDOVAL, Employee at CTF; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-20
Citations: 671 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 16-15745
Parties: Thomas HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. SANDOVAL, Employee at CTF; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
Thomas HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. SANDOVAL, Employee at CTF; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15745
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 20, 2016
Thomas Hill, Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Thomas Hill 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 a dismissal for failure to state a claim 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 deliberate indifference claim because Hill failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Hill's safety. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) ("To establish a prison official's deliberate indifference, an inmate must show that the official was aware of a risk to the inmate's health or safety and that the official deliberately disregarded the risk.").
To the extent that Hill alleged a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment arising from the denial of his administrative grievances, the district court properly dismissed this claim because "inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.