Guillermo C. Trujillo v. Stu Sherman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO C. TRUJILLO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STU SHERMAN,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-15952
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01401-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 20, 2016***
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Guillermo C. Trujillo appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
FILED
JAN 28 2016
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.
** Trujillo 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 2 --

indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.
1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s failure-to-protect claim
because Trujillo 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 still present factual allegations sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s claim regarding the
processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a
“constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez, 334
F.3d at 860.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
15-15952 2

-- 2 of 2 --