Shawn Charles Goff v. KIMBLE, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWN CHARLES GOFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KIMBLE, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15052
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01392-DLR-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Shawn Charles Goff appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
Amendment claims relating to the conditions of his confinement. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
* 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
NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15052
28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,
1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Goff’s action because Goff failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of or disregarded an excessive
risk to Goff’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (prison
officials are liable for denying a prisoner humane conditions of confinement only if
they know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm); Starr v. Baca, 652
F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory
liability); 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --