Richard Winnop v. Deschutes County

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Richard S. Winnop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with a fall he sustained while in custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Winnop’s claim against Deschutes County was proper because Winnop failed to allege that his constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom of the County. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

Dismissal of Winnop’s claim against Sheriff Blanton was proper because Winnop failed to allege facts demonstrating that Sheriff Blanton knew of but disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (person can be liable for deliberate indifference only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”); Ortez…