FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRYL LLOYD WHITE, No. 09-17657
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00953-LRH-RJJ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JIM GIBBONS, Prison Commissioner; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Darryl Lloyd White, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
*
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).
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed White’s claim concerning rocks in the
prison yard because White failed to allege personal involvement by any served
defendant in maintaining the allegedly dangerous policy. See Jones v. Williams,
297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under color of
state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal
participation in the alleged rights deprivation . . . .”).
The district court properly dismissed White’s second-hand smoke claim
because White failed to allege that any defendant had knowledge of clandestine
smoking and recklessly disregarded a risk presented by such exposure. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found
liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of
confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate
health or safety[.]”); see also Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.
The district court properly dismissed White’s claim regarding inadequate
clothing because White failed to allege any serious harm based on the clothing
provided. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
2 09-17657
The district court properly dismissed White’s due process claim because
White failed to allege that his property was confiscated in violation of law.
See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.246 (allowing prison authorities to deduct certain monies
from prisoner accounts); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.2475 (limiting prison authorities’
ability to withdraw monies when the account balance is below a certain minimum);
cf. Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Due Process
Clause protects inmates from unauthorized deductions.” (emphasis added)).
The district court properly dismissed White’s claims concerning price-fixing
with the telephone company and racial discrimination because White failed to
allege involvement by any served defendant. See Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.
We decline to address the named defendants whom the district court
dismissed from the action for failure to serve process. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised in the opening brief are
generally waived).
White’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-17657