Nakia Pettus v. U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS and D. SMITH, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAKIA PETTUS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS and D.
SMITH, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17676
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00741-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Nakia Pettus appeals pro se from the district court’s
dismissal and summary judgment in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 288 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17676 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A(a),
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and the grant of summary
judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pettus’s access-to-courts claim against
all defendants because Pettus failed to allege an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (requiring actual prejudice to contemplated or
existing litigation, such as inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Pettus’s deliberate
indifference claims against defendant Smith because Pettus failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact that defendant participated in, directed, or failed to
prevent a serious risk of harm to Pettus’s personal safety or mental health. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“officials may not be held liable for
the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinate under a theory of respondeat
superior”); cf. Hedrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006) (supervisor is
liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the constitutional violations of subordinates if
the supervisor participated in, directed, or failed to prevent them).
Pettus’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --