Richard Stroud v. K. NEVILLE, Corrections Officer, in individual capacity

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICHARD STROUD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
K. NEVILLE, Corrections Officer, in
individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-56929
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-06214-R-MRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Richard Stroud appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety in
connection with an assault by other inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-56929 2
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v.
Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stroud’s action because Stroud failed
to allege facts showing that defendant disregarded an excessive risk to Stroud’s
safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (claim of deliberate
indifference requires showing that “the official [knew] of and disregard[ed] an
excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Albrecht v. Lund, 845
F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal without leave to amend is not an abuse of
discretion if amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stroud’s motion for
reconsideration because Stroud failed to establish any ground for such relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc, 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and discussing grounds for
reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --