Case Name: Isiah LUCAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. MIRANDA, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-21
Citations: 519 F. App'x 506
Docket Number: No. 12-15661
Parties: Isiah LUCAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. MIRANDA, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 506–506

Head Matter:
Isiah LUCAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. MIRANDA, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15661.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 21, 2013.
Isiah Lucas, Jr., San Diego, CA, pro se.
Matthew Marvin Grigg, Nancy E. Hud-gins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Former California state prisoner Isiah Lucas, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference in connection with his upper bunk assignment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to reasonable prison officials in defendants' position that following prison housing protocols prioritizing epileptic inmates for lower bunks would amount to deliberate indifference. See Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.2010) ("The relevant, dispositive inquiry . is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he conft'onted." (emphasis, citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.