Case Name: Albert Karl HEITZMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-21
Citations: 513 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 11-17999
Parties: Albert Karl HEITZMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
Albert Karl HEITZMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-17999.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 21, 2013.
Albert Karl Heitzmann, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former Arizona state prisoner Albert Karl Heitzmann appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Heitzmann failed to allege facts in his amended complaint showing that defendant Ryan had any involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivations. See Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir.2007) ("[A] person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, 'if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.' " (citation omitted)).
To the extent that Heitzmann contends Ryan may be sued in his official capacity for injunctive relief, we do not consider this argument because it was not raised before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.