CURTIS MORRISON V. C. HILL, No. 11-17479 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 25 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CURTIS LEE MORRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-17479 D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02557-KJMEFB v. MEMORANDUM * C. HILL, C.O.; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Curtis Lee Morrison, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and due process violations. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Morrison s Eighth Amendment claims because Morrison failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they allegedly placed an inmate who was a smoker in his cell. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297-98 (1991) (inmate must establish that prison officials possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind to implicate the Eighth Amendment); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (deliberate indifference requires a purposeful act or failure to respond to pain or possible medical need ). Dismissal of Morrison s due process claims was proper because the record shows that the results of the disciplinary hearing, including the loss of good-time credits, have not been invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (claim for damages based on allegations that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed, including the deprivation of good-time credits, is not cognizable under § 1983 ); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487(1994) (if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the 2 11-17479 invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated through habeas or other means). AFFIRMED. 3 11-17479
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
