Zavala

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jose G. Zavala appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Zavala’s assertion of claims under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because it is a criminal statute that does not give rise to civil *213 liability. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir.2006).

The district court properly dismissed Zavala’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the allegations failed to rise to the level of constitutional deprivations. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 7, 9-10 , 112 S.Ct. 995 , 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (holding that the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ” violates the Eighth Amendment, that the “absence of serious injury is ... relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry[,]” and that the Eighth Amendment only recognizes the use of physical force above a certain threshold) (emphasis added); see also Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir.1997), abrogated on other…