Steven Wilhelm v. Jeannie Woodford
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Steven Hairl Wilhelm appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his health and safety due to his exposure to environmental tobacco smoke' while housed in prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wilhelm’s action because Wilhelm failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Woodford knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Wilhelm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health[.]”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).