Case Name: Noel RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISAAC, Counselor at Corcoran State Prison-SHU, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 690 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 16-15705
Parties: Noel RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISAAC, Counselor at Corcoran State Prison-SHU, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
Noel RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISAAC, Counselor at Corcoran State Prison-SHU, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15705
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 25, 2017
Noel Rodriguez, Pro Se
Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Misha Igra, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Noel Rodriguez, a California state prisoner, 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez's action because Rodriguez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate safety); Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (in a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct caused the claimed injury by establishing both causation-in-fact and proximate causation).
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.