Brian A. Smith v. RANDY GROUNDS, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN A. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17768
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01410-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 19, 2013***
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Brian A. Smith appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
FILED
DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Smith consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 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 Smith’s action because Smith failed to
allege sufficient facts in his Fourth Amended Complaint showing that defendants
violated his constitutional rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”); see also Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (protected liberty or property interest only
arises under Due Process Clause when a restraint imposes an “atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life”); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (for a deliberate indifference
claim, “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 must also draw the
inference”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for
supervisory liability under § 1983).
We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See
12-17768 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
12-17768 3

-- 3 of 3 --