FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES MARK HINKLEY, No. 14-35603
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-05030-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BERNARD WARNER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner James Mark Hinkley appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth and Eighth
Amendment claims arising out of a random urinalysis drug test. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (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 Hinkley’s Fourth Amendment claim
because Hinkley failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his random urinalysis
drug test was unreasonable. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 702-03 (9th
Cir. 1997) (setting forth factors to determine whether a search is reasonable under
the Fourth Amendment and holding that a prisoner’s non-random urinalysis drug
test was a reasonable search). Moreover, the district court properly dismissed
Hinkley’s challenge to the urinalysis policy because it concluded the policy was
reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.
The district court properly dismissed Hinkley’s Eighth Amendment claim
because Hinkley failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of
and disregarded a substantial risk of physical or mental harm to Hinkley when he
was selected for a random urinalysis drug test. 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 health or safety[.]”); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.
2011) (explaining that a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he is personally
2 14-35603
involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection
between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief).
We reject Hinkley’s contention that the district court failed to permit
discovery.
Hinkley’s contempt motion, cross-noticed in Appeal Nos. 14-35602 and 14-
35603 and filed on January 2, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35603