Jerry Johnson v. Moore

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 3, 2023
• Docket: 22-15567
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JERRY E. JOHNSON, No. 22-15567

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02427-RFB-VCF v.

MOORE, Ms.; et al., MEMORANDUM*

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 3, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Jerry E. Johnson appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

Amendment violations arising from unsanitary conditions of confinement. We

affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prison staff

consciously disregarded an excessive risk to Johnson’s health by exposing him

to unsanitary conditions when he was placed temporarily in an unclean cell for

several hours during the transfer of a group of inmates to different cell placements

within the prison. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-58 (9th Cir.

2004) (prison officials are deliberately indifferent only if they know of and

disregard an excessive risk of serious harm to inmate health); Anderson v. County

of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (9th Cir. 1995) (lack of sanitation must be severe

and prolonged to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation).

AFFIRMED.