James Helm v. Adam Christianson
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
James Lee Helm, a California civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his rights while he was a civil detainee at the Stanislaus County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Helm’s claims against defendants in their individual capacities because Helm failed to set forth facts linking defendants to the constitutional violations at issue. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a plaintiff must plead that each defendant violated the Constitution through his own individual actions); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (“Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” (internal citations omitted)).