NAKIA PETTUS V. BOP, No. 10-17676 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NAKIA PETTUS, No. 10-17676 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00741-CRB v. MEMORANDUM * U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS and D. SMITH, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. 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 * 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). 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 10-17676
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
