David Wilson v. Director of Adult Institutions, et al, No. 09-15953 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 22 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 09-15953 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02904-WBSGGH v. DIRECTOR OF ADULT INSTITUTIONS; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner David Wayne Wilson appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing without prejudice his constitutional and statutory claims stemming from his inability to watch educational programming on * 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). television while housed in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court s decision to dismiss Wilson s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Wilson s Eighth Amendment claim because the lack of educational television programs, standing alone, does not amount to deliberate indifference. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254 (9th Cir. 1982) ( Idleness and the lack of programs are not Eighth Amendment violations. ), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). The district court also properly dismissed Wilson s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) and the Rehabilitation Act ( RA ). Wilson failed to allege that he was denied access to educational programming because of a disability or that he was unable to access the programming because of the disparate impact of a facially neutral policy. See Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (ADA claim failed because pretrial detainee was not excluded from outdoor recreation because of disability); O Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff must allege that 2 he was denied access to programming solely because of a disability to state an RA claim). Wilson s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. We deny Wilson s motion under Fed. R. App. P. 15 as moot. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
