Carlton Fields v. Edward Moreno
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Former California pre-trial detainee Carlton Fields appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Fields’ claims against Mims, Moreno, and Hill in their individual capacities because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants were personally involved in the jail’s denial of dental care, or that their alleged misconduct caused his injuries. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional violation or if there is “a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent that Fields alleged claims against Mims, Moreno, and Hill in their official capacities, the district court properly…