Ronnell Ray HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. F. FOULK, Defendant-Appellee, 595 F. App'x 711

MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Ronnell Ray Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendant failed to protect him from an inmate assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.8d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hill’s action because Hill failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of an inmate assault. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate ... safety[.]”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.