Case Name: DeWayne THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. DePOND, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-08
Citations: 586 F. App'x 442
Docket Number: No. 14-15993
Parties: DeWayne THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. DePOND, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. •
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 442–442

Head Matter:
DeWayne THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. DePOND, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-15993.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 8, 2014.
DeWayne Thompson, Represa, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. •
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) ("[Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-eonfinement 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.