Wade

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Chancellor Wade appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his Muslim religion, and retaliated against him for complaining about the discrimination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wade’s retaliation claims because Wade failed to allege any harm or that that his constitutional rights were chilled in any degree by defendants’ retaliatory actions. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568-69 (9th Cir.2005).

The district court properly dismissed Wade’s Title VII claims because his relationship with the Prison Industry Authority (“PIA”) was penological not pecuniary, and he was not an employee for Title VII purposes. See, e.g., Burleson v. State of California, 83 F.3d 311, 313-14 (9th Cir.1996) (inmate employed by PIA not an employee for purposes of Fair Labor Standards Act).

The district court also properly dismissed Wade’s claim that defendants…