Brammer
Brammer v. Rocha
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner James W. Brammer appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded Brammer failed to state a deliberate indifference claim because the complaint failed to adequately allege supervisory defendants’ personal involvement in an Eighth Amendment violation, and the doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable. See Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 566 (9th Cir.1988).
The district court also properly concluded Brammer failed to allege an actual injury in support of his claim that defendants interfered with his access to courts, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), or an “atypical and significant hardship” giving rise to a liberty interest in support of his claim that he was improperly placed on “C status,” see Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003).