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 *664 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.