Elias Murillo v. James Edward Macdonald

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ELIAS MURILLO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES EDWARD MACDONALD,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16873
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01220-FJM-
MEA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Elias Murillo, a California state prisoner incarcerated in Arizona, appeals pro
se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16873 2
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed action because the short-term
deprivation of bathroom facilities, without more, is not sufficiently grave to form
the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,
298 (1991) (“[O]nly those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of
life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment
violation.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Johnson v. Lewis,
217 F.3d 726, 733 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e have no doubt that toilets can be
unavailable for some period of time without violating the Eighth
Amendment . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --