*1 Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Shawn Charles Goff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment claims relating to the conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under *2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Goff’s action because Goff failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of or disregarded an excessive risk to Goff’s health . See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (prison officials are liable for denying a prisoner humane conditions of confinement only if they know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm); Starr v. Baca , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability); 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) .

AFFIRMED.

2 21-15052

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).