David Wilson v. Director of Adult Institutions ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID WAYNE WILSON, No. 09-15953
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02904-WBS-
GGH
v.
DIRECTOR OF ADULT MEMORANDUM *
INSTITUTIONS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Wayne Wilson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his constitutional and
statutory claims stemming from his inability to watch educational programming on
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
television while housed in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss
Wilson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,
853 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s Eighth Amendment claim
because the lack of educational television programs, standing alone, does not
amount to deliberate indifference. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254 (9th
Cir. 1982) (“Idleness and the lack of programs are not Eighth Amendment
violations.”), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472(1995).
The district court also properly dismissed Wilson’s claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”).
Wilson failed to allege that he was denied access to educational programming
because of a disability or that he was unable to access the programming because of
the disparate impact of a facially neutral policy. See Simmons v. Navajo County,
609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (ADA claim failed because pretrial detainee
was not excluded from outdoor recreation because of disability); O’Guinn v.
Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff must allege that
2
he was denied access to programming solely because of a disability to state an RA
claim).
Wilson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny Wilson’s motion under Fed. R. App. P. 15 as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3