NOEL RODRIGUEZ V. ISAAC, No. 16-15705 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 25 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOEL RODRIGUEZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15705 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG v. MEMORANDUM* ISAAC, Counselor at Corcoran State Prison - SHU, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Noel Rodriguez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. 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). Watison v. * 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). Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s action because Rodriguez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate safety); Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (in a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct caused the claimed injury by establishing both causation-infact and proximate causation). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-15705

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.