Alfonso Garcia v. David Shinn

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFONSO GARCIA, No. 21-15995
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00048-SPL-MTM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID SHINN, Director, ADOC Director;
CENTURION MANAGED CARE,
Corporate Office; S. WRIGHT, NP,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Alfonso Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment
claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Garcia’s action because Garcia failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she
“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; 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 [or she] must also draw the
inference”); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (to
state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional public
function, such as providing medical care to prisoners, a plaintiff must allege facts
to support that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy,
decision, or custom promulgated or endorsed by the private entity); Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15995