Ronnell Hill v. M. Cate , 594 F. App'x 446 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAR 02 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RONNELL RAY HILL,                                  No. 14-15282
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01074-SAB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    M. CATE; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
    Submitted February 17, 2015***
    Before:         O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Ronnell Ray Hill appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    Hill 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).
    failed to protect him from an assault by his cellmate. 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).
    We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Hill’s Eighth Amendment claims
    because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of and
    disregarded a substantial risk that Hill would be assaulted by his cellmate. See
    Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found
    liable under the Eighth Amendment . . . unless the official knows of and disregards
    an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety[.]”); Starr v. Baca, 
    652 F.3d 1202
    , 1207 (9th
    Cir. 2011) (explaining that a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he is
    personally involved in the constitutional violation or if there is “a sufficient causal
    connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional
    violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    The district court properly dismissed Hill’s due process claim because he
    failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that he possessed a liberty interest in
    avoiding placement in the Security Housing Unit. See Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 448 (9th Cir. 2000) (a prisoner only has a liberty interest “when a change
    occurs in confinement that imposes an atypical and significant hardship . . . in
    2                                     14-15282
    relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted)).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                     14-15282
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-15282

Citation Numbers: 594 F. App'x 446

Filed Date: 3/2/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023