SLUSHER v. RYAN (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Ralph Charles Slusher appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from alleged exposure to black spore mold. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Slusher's action because Slusher failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a § 1983 claim cannot be premised on a theory of respondeat superior); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirements for cruel and unusual punishment claim); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health or safety).

We reject as unsupported by the record Slusher's contention that the district court denied a motion to appoint counsel.

Slusher's motion for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.