TIMOTHY DUNLAP V. DENNIS FRICK, No. 15-35225 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY ALLAN DUNLAP, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 15-35225 D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00299-CWD v. MEMORANDUM* DENNIS FRICK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted June 14, 2016*** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Idaho state prisoner Timothy Allan Dunlap appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ** *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Dunlap’s requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief and in separate motions. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). deprived him of food in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have 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 because Dunlap failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether being provided two meals on weekend days constituted a sufficiently serious deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-part showing required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, including an objective showing that there was a sufficiently serious deprivation of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health.”). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35225

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.