Court Opinion

ID: 3173218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-28 21:01:06.772965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:50.519458
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          JAN 28 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

GUILLERMO C. TRUJILLO,                           No. 15-15952

                Plaintiff - Appellant,           D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01401-BAM

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
STU SHERMAN,

                Defendant - Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of California
                   Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                             Submitted January 20, 2016***

Before:         CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Guillermo C. Trujillo appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
            Trujillo consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003) (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 Trujillo’s failure-to-protect claim

because Trujillo failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings

are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to

state a plausible claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he “knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,

1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

      The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s claim regarding the

processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a

“constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez, 334
F.3d at 860.

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                      15-15952