Archie Cranford v. Pam Ahlin;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARCHIE CRANFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAM AHLIN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-17473
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01131-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 21, 2015***
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Archie Cranford, a civilly committed resident of Coalinga State Hospital,
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FILED
JUL 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Cranford 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

action alleging a failure-to-protect claim. 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) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cranford’s action because Cranford
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of any threats to his
safety or deviated from professional standards by disregarding known unsafe
conditions. See Ammons v. Wash. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020,
1027, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[I]n the face of known threats to patient safety,
state officials may not act (or fail to act) with conscious indifference, but must take
adequate steps in accordance with professional standards to prevent harm from
occurring.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be
liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
14-17473 2

-- 2 of 2 --