Byron Johnson v. David Runnels

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Byron Eugene Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 818, 821 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissal for failure to exhaust); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Bail-lie because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Baillie caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075 , 1081-82 (9th Cir.1996) (“[M]ere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment.”); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir.1978) (“The requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but…