Opinion
22-16869
02-27-2024
HOWARD BLAKE TILLMAN, named as Sir Howard Blake Tillman II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID SHINN, Director; R. CARR, Deputy Warden; TEDESCO, Unknown: named as John and Jane Doe Tedesco, Correctional Officer II; DAVIS, Unknown CO II; MORRIS, Unknown Complex Warden; D'ARCY DAVIS; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Named as John and Jane Doe, Morris, Complex Warden; RODNEY CARR, Deputy Warden; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Named as John and Jane Doe, Tedesco, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01378-JAT-DMF
Before: BENNETT, BADE, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Howard Blake Tillman appeals pro se from the district court's order granting summary judgment for defendants on his claim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation arising from unsafe conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Tillman's conditions-of-confinement claim because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk to inmate health or safety that was "sufficiently serious" to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-34 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).