Solis

MEMORANDUM **

Reginald Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to secondhand smoke within the prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo-a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 , 923 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action with prejudice because Smith’s second amended complaint did not state a claim for deliberate indifference and'Smith failed to correct the defects. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (explaining that to establish a supervisor’s liability under section 1983, an inmate must demonstrate that the official “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.”); see also DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 , 186 n. 3 (9th Cir.1987) (“a district court’s discretion over amendments is especially broad where the court has already given a plaintiff one or *483 more opportunities to…