Case Name: Archie CRANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pam AHLIN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-29
Citations: 610 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 14-17473
Parties: Archie CRANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pam AHLIN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
Archie CRANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pam AHLIN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-17473.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2015.
Filed July 29, 2015.
Archie Cranford, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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
Archie Cranford, a civilly committed resident of Coalinga State Hospital, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a failure-to-protect claim. 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), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cranford's action because Cranford failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of any threats to his safety or deviated from professional standards by disregarding known unsafe conditions. See Ammons v. Wash. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1027, 1029-30 (9th Cir.2011) ("[I]n the face of known threats to patient safety, state officials may not act (or fail to act) with conscious indifference, but must take adequate steps in accordance with professional standards to prevent harm from occurring." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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 still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.