in the law library and did not possess a valid law license. Vaughn also claimed that prison officials directed him to “cease and desist” providing legal assistance to other inmates. In sum, we conclude that Vaughn has stated a retaliation claim, and that dismissal of this claim was in error. Vaughn’s remaining claims were brought on behalf of other inmates at the Cambria County Prison. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Vaughn lacks standing to raise such claims. But he should be allowed to amend his complaint to identify a “personal stake” in the alleged constitutional violations. See Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 27-28 (3d Cir. 1981). In this connection, with the exception of Vaughn’s dental health care claim, see Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>), it is not clear that amendment of these
holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs holding that prisoner must allege acts or omissions evidencing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that plaintiff in a prison conforming to national commission on correctional health care standards cannot establish that the lack of routine teeth cleaning constitutes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs internal quotation marks omitted