Kenneth Knanishu v. John McGinness , 478 F. App'x 432 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH KNANISHU, No. 11-15733
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00005-JAM-
JFM
v.
JOHN MCGINNESS, Sheriff; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kenneth Knanishu appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that, while he
was incarcerated in the Sacramento County Main Jail, defendants violated his
constitutional rights by failing to protect him from, and delaying medical treatment
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
after, an attack by another inmate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
affirm.
After giving Knanishu specific notice of the deficiencies in his complaints
and multiple opportunities to amend, the district court properly dismissed the
claims against Jacoby because the allegations in the complaint did not “plausibly
suggest an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009); see
also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (to state a claim for deliberate
indifference, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw
the inference”); Berry v. Bunnel, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)
(to establish deliberate indifference claim based on delay in medical treatment,
plaintiff must show that the delay itself caused harm).
The district court properly dismissed the deliberate indifference claims
against Fitch and Covington because the allegations in the operative complaint did
not “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 681; see also
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 675 F.3d 1213, 1230 (9th Cir. 2012) (to state a claim,
plaintiff must allege that defendant engaged in some “culpable action or inaction”;
2 11-15733
supervisors are not “liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional actions of their
subordinates based solely on a theory of respondeat superior”).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the County of
Sacramento because Knanishu did not allege that his injuries were proximately
caused by defendants’ conduct under an official county policy, custom, practice, or
procedure. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (setting
forth requirements for a § 1983 claim of municipal liability).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-15733