FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONNELL RAY HILL, No. 14-15282
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01074-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M. CATE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 17, 2015***
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronnell Ray Hill appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Hill 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).
failed to protect him from an assault by his cellmate. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hill’s Eighth Amendment claims
because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of and
disregarded a substantial risk that Hill would be assaulted by his cellmate. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (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[.]”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th
Cir. 2011) (explaining that a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he is
personally involved in the constitutional violation or if there is “a sufficient causal
connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional
violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Hill’s due process claim because he
failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that he possessed a liberty interest in
avoiding placement in the Security Housing Unit. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 448 (9th Cir. 2000) (a prisoner only has a liberty interest “when a change
occurs in confinement that imposes an atypical and significant hardship . . . in
2 14-15282
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-15282