PER CURIAM:1

Boudreaux challenges the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 suit against a number of defendants as frivolous under § 1915(d) and against other defendants for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

David Boudreaux, Sr., a convicted prisoner presently incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, filed this pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint, 42 Nor has he suggested that they acted outside their jurisdictions, thereby losing the protection of judicial immunity. Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court correctly dismissed this claim as frivolous.

Boudreaux's suit against his court appointed counsel presumably is based upon his claim that he had difficulty contacting them while in the Orleans Parish Prison System. The district court correctly dismissed this § 1983 action against attorneys Rochs and Stegeman because neither is a state actor for purposes of § 1983. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981); Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988). The claim, therefore, is legally frivolous.

Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee and Orleans Parish Sheriff Charles C. Foti, Jr. are the last two defendants named by Boudreaux in connection with his transfer from Jefferson to Orleans Parish. His claims against them are also baseless. Section 1983 does not create substantive rights but provides a civil remedy for the violation of protected life, liberty, or property interests. Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 935 (5th Cir. 1995); San Jacinto Savings & Loan v. Kacal, 928 F.2d 697, 700 (5th Cir. 1991). Boudreaux has alleged no such a violation. An inmate generally has no constitutional right to be imprisoned in any particular institution, even if life in one institution is less desirable. Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (5th Cir. 1982). Moreover, in a recent decision the Supreme Court recognized that a prisoner's claim that state prison regulations or statutes have been violated will not support a § 1983 suit unless the violations produce conditions that are "atypical and [a] significant hardship . . .in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995). In other words, the condition must be severe enough to implicate the Due Process Clause "of its own force." Id. Intrastate prison transfers do not qualify. See id. at 2297 (citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)). Finally, Boudreaux alleges some specific facts regarding limitation of telephone and mail privileges in support of his argument that the sheriffs denied him access to the court and to his attorneys. To state a cause of action, however, a plaintiff must connect such allegations to prejudice in a specific legal proceeding. See Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993); Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1988). Boudreaux has not done so. The district court, therefore, correctly dismissed the suits against Sheriff Foti and Lee as frivolous.

In short, the record and the law support the dismissal under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) of Boudreaux's actions against Judges McManus and Keller, attorneys Rochs and Russell, and Sheriffs Lee and Foti. As there is no abuse of discretion, the district court's decision is affirmed.

Boudreaux's last claims, those against Wardens Lensing and Whitley, arise from his transfer to their prisons. As the district court dismissed these actions for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), this Court reviews the decisions de novo and will not affirm if the allegations support relief on any theory. Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 189 (1994). For reasons stated above, the plaintiff has no right to be imprisoned in any particular institution. Nor will his allegations that the defendants violated state prison regulations or laws support a § 1983 claim under these circumstances. Likewise, his more specific claims regarding limited telephone access cannot succeed because the prisoner has not linked them to prejudice in a particular case. Finally, Boudreaux does not allege that either defendant personally participated in the complained of activity, implemented an affirmatively wrongful policy, or breached an affirmative duty imposed on him by state law. A plaintiff cannot maintain an action against an official in his individual capacity without alleging a causal connection between the official's actions and the violation. Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 583 (5th Cir. 1995); see Lozano v. Smith, 718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court, therefore, correctly dismissed this action against Wardens Lensing and Whitley for failure to state a claim.

We have considered Boudreaux's remaining arguments that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to make an additional amendment to his petition, in failing to order service of process on the original defendants, and in declining to appoint counsel to assist him in this suit. We are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED.