ALBERT HEITZMANN V. CHARLES RYAN, No. 11-17999 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT KARL HEITZMANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-17999 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00762-ECV v. MEMORANDUM * CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Edward C. Voss, Magistrate Judge, Presiding ** Submitted March 12, 2013 *** Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Former Arizona state prisoner Albert Karl Heitzmann appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Heitzmann consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Heitzmann failed to allege facts in his amended complaint showing that defendant Ryan had any involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivations. See Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) ( [A] person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made. (citation omitted)). To the extent that Heitzmann contends Ryan may be sued in his official capacity for injunctive relief, we do not consider this argument because it was not raised before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED.

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.