DEWAYNE THOMPSON V. J. DEPOND, No. 14-15993 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 08 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DeWAYNE THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-15993 D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00527-AWIBAM v. J. DePOND, Correctional Officer, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. DeWayne Thompson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s action because Thompson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered extreme deprivations constituting an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (“[E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-ofconfinement claim.”); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (to determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred, the circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation must be considered; more modest deprivations must be lengthy or ongoing). We reject Thompson’s contention that the district court erroneously failed to address the subjective component of the alleged Eighth Amendment violation. AFFIRMED. 2 14-15993

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.