GEORGE LUSTER V. JAMES SCHOMIG, No. 11-17769 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 03 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEORGE LUSTER, No. 11-17769 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00281-LRHVCF v. JAMES SCHOMIG; MARTHA SIMS, MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. George Luster, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from defendants failure to provide adequate lighting. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for Sims on Luster s conditions-of-confinement claim because Luster failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was actually denied adequate lighting in his cell. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996) ( To sustain an Eighth Amendment claim, the plaintiff must prove a denial of the minimal civilized measure of life s necessities, occurring through deliberate indifference by prison personnel or officers. (citations omitted)); Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding Eight Amendment violation where the evidence showed that the prison lighting was inadequate for reading . . . and hindered attempts to insure that basic sanitation was maintained ). Luster makes other claims concerning his motions for appointment of counsel, for leave to add a defendant, and for injunctive relief that are not supported. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17769

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.