Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0646-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank E. VOTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don MILLS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35041.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 22, 2012.
    Frank E. Voth, Salem, OR, pro se.
    Tiffany Keast, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Frank E. Voth, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations regarding his housing assignment and conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against Mills, the prison superintendent, because Voth failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mills personally participated in the alleged violations, or knew of the alleged violations and failed to act. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989).

The district court properly determined that Voth’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because Voth was no longer housed in the prison where the allegedly unconstitutional events occurred. 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).

Voth’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.