United States v. 2020-08-12 | 19-16983 | RALPH SLUSHER V. CHARLES RYAN | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RALPH CHARLES SLUSHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16983

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-08175-SRB-ESW

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Ralph Charles Slusher appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims arising from alleged exposure to black spore mold. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim

*
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).
FILED

AUG 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Slusher’s action because Slusher failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675-77 (2009) (a § 1983 claim cannot be premised on a theory
of respondeat superior); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)
(requirements for cruel and unusual punishment claim); Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only
if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or
safety).
We reject as unsupported by the record Slusher’s contention that the district
court denied a motion to appoint counsel.
Slusher’s motion for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief,
is denied.
AFFIRMED.