Curtis Thompson v. Officer Burach

MEMORANDUM

Curtis S. Thompson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and judgment following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We review de novo a district court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact following a bench trial. OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s claims against the supervisory defendants because Thompson failed to allege facts demonstrating their personal involvement in any constitutional violation or a causal connection between their conduct and any such violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.2011) (“A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 if there exists…