WALLACE v. OLSON RJD (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

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. § 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, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (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.