Summary
having to wait for access to a toilet on a daily basis for an hour or an hour and a half does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation
Summary of this case from Wallace v. DavisOpinion
No. 12-16873 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01220-FJM-MEA
08-05-2013
ELIAS MURILLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES EDWARD MACDONALD, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Elias Murillo, a California state prisoner incarcerated in Arizona, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed action because the short-term deprivation of bathroom facilities, without more, is not sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) ("[O]nly those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 733 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[W]e have no doubt that toilets can be unavailable for some period of time without violating the Eighth Amendment . . . .").
AFFIRMED.