Court Opinion

ID: 9945362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 19:01:41.490295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:28.478233
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOWARD BLAKE TILLMAN, named as                  No.    22-16869
Sir Howard Blake Tillman II,
                                                D.C. No.
                Plaintiff-Appellant,            2:20-cv-01378-JAT-DMF

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DAVID SHINN, Director; R. CARR, Deputy
Warden; TEDESCO, Unknown: named as
John and Jane Doe Tedesco, Correctional
Officer II; DAVIS, Unknown CO II;
MORRIS, Unknown Complex Warden;
D’ARCY DAVIS; UNKNOWN PARTIES,
Named as John and Jane Doe, Morris,
Complex Warden; RODNEY CARR, Deputy
Warden; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Named as
John and Jane Doe, Tedesco,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 27, 2024**

      *
             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).
Before: BENNETT, BADE, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

      Arizona state prisoner Howard Blake Tillman appeals pro se from the

district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants on his claim,

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation arising

from unsafe conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118,

1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants

on Tillman’s conditions-of-confinement claim because he failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk to

inmate health or safety that was “sufficiently serious” to establish an Eighth

Amendment violation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832–34 (1994).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2