Devonte Harris v. James Thom

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Devonte Bernard Harris appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and excessive force claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harris’s retaliation claim without leave to amend because Harris failed to allege facts showing that defendants chilled his First Amendment rights and any amendment would have been futile. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-69, n. 11 (9th Cir.2005) (discussing the five elements of a retaliation claim); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir.1995) (dismissal without leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where amendment would be futile).

The district court properly dismissed Harris’s Eighth Amendment claim against Rice because Harris failed to allege that Rice “participated in or directed the…