Blades

MEMORANDUM

Idaho state prisoner Dan Goodrick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him and denied him access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Goodrick’s claim that defendant Schlienz retaliated against him for providing legal assistance to another inmate because Goo-drick failed to allege facts showing that Schleinz’s conduct chilled the exercise of Goodrick’s First Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth the elements of a § 1983 retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court properly dismissed Goodrick’s retaliation claims against the remaining defendants because Goodrick failed to allege their personal involvement in any constitutional violation or a causal connection between their conduct and any…