Brook

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Dwane Brook appeals pro se a judgment entered after a four-day jury trial in his civil rights action alleging prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

1. Dismissal of State Law Claim

The district court properly dismissed Brook’s claim that prison officials violated California Civil Code § 52.1. That statute provides for a civil action against any individual who “interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion” with “rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” See Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1206 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting § 52.1). The acts alleged — that defendants did not respond timely to Brook’s requests, grievances and appeals — are not “threats, intimidation, or coercion” for purposes of § 52.1.

2. Dismissal of the Warden in his Individual Capacity

Brook’s conclusory allegations against the warden are insufficient to state a constitutional claim against him in his individual capacity. There is nothing to indicate the warden was personally involved in processing requests for medical care or responding to inmate grievances or appeals. See Bressi v. Ford, 575 F.3d 891 ,…