Apollo

MEMORANDUM **

John Vincent Apollo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for a special diet, denied him use of the library, and subjected him to verbal threats and unsanitary conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to vacate judgment, Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Sheriff Craig because Apollo failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Craig personally participated in, or had any knowledge of the claimed deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (section 1983 does not impose liability upon state officials for the acts of their subordinates under a respondeat superior theory of liability).

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the County of Sacramento because Apollo failed…