Eric R. Townsel v. KEN QUINN, Superintendent;

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, and we therefore deny Townsel’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC R. TOWNSEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KEN QUINN, Superintendent; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35444
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00482-JLR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Eric R. Townsel appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
FILED
MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

EN/Research 09-35444 2
officials failed to maintain safe conditions in the shower area and were deliberately
indifferent to his resulting medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. John Doe 1 v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly determined that the allegations in Townsel’s
complaint failed to demonstrate that prison officials’ conduct in maintaining the
prison shower area violated the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (requiring a successful Eighth Amendment claim based on
inhumane conditions of confinement to show that prison officials knew of a
substantial risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable measures to avoid the
harm); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that
allegations describing slippery prison floors, without more, “do not state even an
arguable claim for cruel and unusual punishment”), superceded by statute on other
grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); see also
Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (providing
discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile).
The district court properly dismissed Townsel’s due process claim that he
was entitled to a custody and classification hearing prior to his transfer because he
failed to allege that his transfer imposed an atypical and significant hardship upon

-- 2 of 3 --

EN/Research 09-35444 3
him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant Munk
because Townsel failed to raise a triable issue as to whether Munk was deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58
(9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a
medical condition, or a difference in opinion between the inmate and prison
medical staff over proper medical treatment does not constitute deliberate
indifference).
Townsel’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --