Gregory S. Philpott v. R. Williams, C.c.i.

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. PHILPOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. WILLIAMS, C.C.I.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-16687
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01773-MCE-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Gregory S. Philpott, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16687 2
review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to
state a claim, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Philpott did not
allege sufficient facts to establish that defendant had reason to suspect that Philpott
would be a stabbing victim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a
prison official cannot be found liable for failing to protect one inmate from another
unless “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety”); Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of
Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (when determining if the
complaint states a claim for relief “we may consider facts contained in documents
attached to the complaint”).
Philpott’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --