Hollis v. Hickman
This text of 32 F. App'x 387 (Hollis v. Hickman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Gary Hollis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
Because Hollis alleged he suffered emotional distress as the result of a correctional officer’s action but did not allege he suffered any physical injury, the district court properly dismissed his complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (prisoner may not bring federal action for mental or emotional injury without a showing of physical injury).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
32 F. App'x 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollis-v-hickman-ca9-2002.