Case Name: Cheldon Dewayne WAGGONER, aka Cheldon Waggoner, aka Cheldon D. Waggoner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marlene COFFEY, Protective Custody Administrator at Central Office, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-23
Citations: 645 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 15-16149
Parties: Cheldon Dewayne WAGGONER, aka Cheldon Waggoner, aka Cheldon D. Waggoner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marlene COFFEY, Protective Custody Administrator at Central Office, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
Cheldon Dewayne WAGGONER, aka Cheldon Waggoner, aka Cheldon D. Waggoner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marlene COFFEY, Protective Custody Administrator at Central Office, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-16149.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 23, 2016.
Cheldon Dewayne Waggoner, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, 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
Arizona state prisoner Cheldon Dewayne Waggoner appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying his requests for protective custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (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 Waggoner's action because Waggoner failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant knew of Waggoner's alleged fear of an assault by other inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) ("[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ,.. unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmatie . safety[.]"); 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 present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.