NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TYRONE WALLACE, No. 17-55660
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01917-AJB-NLS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
R. OLSON, RJD Appeals Coordinator; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Tyrone Wallace, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s access-to-courts claim
because Wallace failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual
injury caused by defendants’ alleged improper screening of his grievances. See
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416 (2002) (the complaint must describe
the underlying claim “well enough to apply the ‘nonfrivolous test’” and “to show
that the ‘arguable’ nature of the underlying claim is more than a hope”).
The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s claims of deliberate
indifference to his safety and serious medical needs because Wallace failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that either Dr. Dalglish or Dr. Glynn was aware of
any risk to his safety or serious medical needs by failing to grant him a single cell
chrono. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a
prison official’s deliberate indifference, an inmate must show that the official was
aware of a risk to the inmate’s health or safety and that the official deliberately
disregarded the risk.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-55660