Adam Paul Blomdahl v. DAVID SHINN, Director, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAM PAUL BLOMDAHL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID SHINN, Director, Director of
Arizona Department of Corrections; SCOTT,
Deputy Warden; BRENNEN, Disciplinary
Captain of (ADC); MILLER, CO III Miller,
A-pod SMU CO III Unit Manager,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15463
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01863-MTL-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Adam Paul Blomdahl appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We
* 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
JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15463
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
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 Blomdahl’s claims against defendants
Shinn and Brennen because Blomdahl failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
these defendants personally participated in a constitutional violation. See Starr v.
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing
supervisory liability).
The district court properly dismissed Blomdahl’s claims against defendant
Miller because Blomdahl failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Miller was
deliberately indifferent to Blomdahl’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official cannot be held liable for deliberate
indifference “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate health or safety; 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”); 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).
Blomdahl’s “motion to enter support[ing] exhibits” is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --