Unpublished Disposition, 902 F.2d 38 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Thomas Carr, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Carr contends that the defendants violated his right to visit with his children.

Carr is serving a sentence for sexual offenses against his two stepdaughters. The Multnomah Juvenile Court ordered that there "is to be no visitation with Mr. Carr by the children unless approved by [a] psychologist or psychiatrist and the Children's Services Division." Based on a psychiatric report submitted by Dr. Weissert, the prison administration has refused to allow Carr visitation with his natural children.

In December 1987, Carr filed an amended civil rights complaint seeking monetary damages and prospective relief for the alleged denial of his constitutional right to visit with his children. He named as defendants Weissert, Prison Superintendent Maass, and Children's Services Division caseworker Pierson. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment finding that Weissert was immune from liability and Carr had alleged no facts sufficient to find the other defendants liable for enforcing a valid court order. Carr timely appeals.

Carr's claim against Dr. Weissert fails because he was absolutely immune from liability for damages and Carr's request for injunctive relief was not directed to him. See Babcock v. Tyler, 884 F.2d 497, 501-02 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1118 (1990). Prison Warden Maass is not liable because he did not participate in or know of the alleged constitutional violation. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Finally, entry of judgment in favor of social worker Pierson was warranted because she did not personally participate in the denial of Carr's visitation rights. See id.

Affirmed.