on Auer’s claims alleging denial of access to court in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the ADA because Auer’s allegations were insufficient to establish a claim for relief. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access to ’courts); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-40 (9th Cir.2001) (ADA); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686-87 (9th Cir.2001) (equal protection). With respect to Auer’s excessive force claim, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment to defendants Vanacore, Smith, Lopez, Neven, Donat, Endel, McDaniel and Slansky because Auer failed to show that these defendants were personally involved in the alleged use of excessive force. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly granted summary
holding that a claim for municipal liability under  1983 requires inter alia proof of an underlying constitutional violation holding that claim brought under section 1983 of the civil rights act constituted a personal injury tort claim because section 1983 confers a general remedy for injuries to personal rights holding that section 1983 action requires a showing of defendants personal participation in alleged constitutional violation holding that denial of a grievance by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff does not establish personal participation under  1983 holding that individual liability under  1983 must be based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation