M. G. v. Charles Samuels

MEMORANDUM

Defendants-appellants Charles E. Sam-uels, Fernando A. Arriola, and Robert Garcia appeal the district court’s order de nying their motion to dismiss plaintiff-ap-pellee M.G.’s Bivens claims against them. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 671-72 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), and review de novo, see Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir.2010). Because the complaint fails to allege nonconclusory facts from which we can infer defendants’ subjective knowledge that a substantial risk of serious harm to M.G. existed, we reverse the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal , 556 U: S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation…