Jerome Paul Wilson v. C. CAMPBELL, III, Correctional Lieutenant

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEROME PAUL WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. CAMPBELL, III, Correctional
Lieutenant,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-56112
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-08142-R-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jerome Paul Wilson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
FILED
OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56112 2
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.
1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s excessive force claim against
defendant Campbell in his third amended complaint because Wilson failed to
allege that Campbell used more than a de minimis amount of force when snatching
Wilson’s necklace. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-10 (1992) (de minimis
use of force generally does not violate Eighth Amendment).
We do not consider Wilson’s contentions concerning allegations he made in
earlier versions of his complaint because they were not included in his third
amended complaint which is the only complaint on review.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --