Cdcr

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Alexios Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations concerning his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alexander’s action because Alexander failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (discussing the subjective prong of deliberate indifference); Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.2010) (courts need not accept as true allegations that contradict exhibits attached to a complaint, or allegations that are “merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences”); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2005) (listing the elements of a conditions of confinement claim and explaining that the circumstances, nature, and duration of…