RALPH SLUSHER V. CHARLES RYAN, No. 19-16983 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RALPH CHARLES SLUSHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16983 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-08175-SRB-ESW MEMORANDUM* CHARLES L. RYAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Ralph Charles Slusher appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from alleged exposure to black spore mold. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Slusher’s action because Slusher failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675-77 (2009) (a § 1983 claim cannot be premised on a theory of respondeat superior); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirements for cruel and unusual punishment claim); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety). We reject as unsupported by the record Slusher’s contention that the district court denied a motion to appoint counsel. Slusher’s motion for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2

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.