Dewayne Thompson v. J. Depond

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 08 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DeWAYNE THOMPSON, No. 14-15993
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00527-AWI-
BAM
v.
J. DePOND, Correctional Officer, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
DeWayne Thompson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth
Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s action because Thompson
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered extreme deprivations
constituting an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.
1, 9 (1992) (“[E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-
confinement claim.”); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (to
determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred, the circumstances,
nature, and duration of a deprivation must be considered; more modest
deprivations must be lengthy or ongoing).
We reject Thompson’s contention that the district court erroneously failed to
address the subjective component of the alleged Eighth Amendment violation.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15993