Ransom

MEMORANDUM ***

Bryan Edwin Ransom, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety and deprived him of due process when they fabricated his testimony at a hearing thus labelling him a “snitch.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

Insofar as Ransom appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Eighth Amendment claim relating to his hunger strike, we affirm the district court’s dismissal because prison officials did not cause the injury, if any, suffered by Ransom. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978).

In addition, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ransom’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim relating to his being placed in danger by being labelled a “snitch” because such a claim is more properly brought under the Eighth Amendment. See Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir.1996).

We affirm the district court’s denial of Ransom’s motions…