Lambert

Smith v. Lambert

Good Law
12 F. App'x 570
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 25, 2001No. 00-35333; D.C. No. CV-99-05046-LRSCalifornia590 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy Lee Smith appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts, violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and other constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 , 119 S.Ct. 1058 , 143 L.Ed.2d 63 (1999). We affirm.

Because Smith did not allege that an official knew of and disregarded a serious medical condition, the district court did not err by dismissing his claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

Because Smith failed to allege an actual injury, the district court did not err by dismissing his claim of denial of access to the courts against defendant Frost. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

Because Smith did not allege that defendant Gleason’s imposition of disciplinary proceedings against him imposed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.