THOMAS HILL V. R. SANDOVAL, No. 16-15745 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS HILL, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-15745 D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02020-RMW MEMORANDUM* R. SANDOVAL, Employee at CTF; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Thomas Hill 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 for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, * 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). 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hill’s deliberate indifference claim because Hill failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Hill’s safety. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a prison official’s deliberate indifference, an inmate must show that the official was aware of a risk to the inmate’s health or safety and that the official deliberately disregarded the risk.”). To the extent that Hill alleged a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment arising from the denial of his administrative grievances, the district court properly dismissed this claim because “inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). 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 16-15745

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.