Buford v. Hicks
This text of 88 F. App'x 274 (Buford v. Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Timothy Buford appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 [275]*275F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
After giving Buford an opportunity to amend his complaint, the district court properly dismissed his action for failure to state a claim because Buford’s allegations that he was served spoiled milk two days in a row did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.1988), vacated on other grounds, 493 U.S. 801, 110 S.Ct. 37, 107 L.Ed.2d 7 (1989).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
88 F. App'x 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buford-v-hicks-ca9-2004.