NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
HANOI BARBARO ACOSTA, No. 10-16723
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00467-MEA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Mark E. Aspey, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted November 21, 2011 ***
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Hanoi Barbaro Acosta, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties 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).
psychological harm, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for alleged Fourth and
Eighth Amendment violations during a prison strip search. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Biodiversity Legal Found. v.
Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Acosta’s claim for
damages for psychological harm because Acosta did not raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether he sustained the necessary physical injury to support a
claim for compensatory damages for psychological harm, and thus his claim is
barred under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); see also
Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 625-28 (9th Cir. 2002).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Acosta’s claim for
punitive damages because Acosta did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether individual defendants acted with the requisite level of culpability to
justify a punitive damages award, see Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco,
266 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001), and Sheriff Arpaio and Sergeant Nicholas are
immune in their official capacities from punitive damages, see Mitchell v. Dupnik,
75 F.3d 517, 527 (9th Cir. 1996).
The district court properly dismissed Acosta’s claims for injunctive relief as
moot because Acosta was no longer housed in the prison where the allegedly
2 10-16723
unconstitutional events took place. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th
Cir. 1995) (an inmate’s transfer from a prison while his claims are pending will
generally moot any claims for injunctive relief relating to that prison’s policies).
Acosta’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-16723