Howard Blake Tillman, named as Sir Howard Blake Tillman II v. DAVID SHINN, Director

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD BLAKE TILLMAN, named as
Sir Howard Blake Tillman II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID SHINN, Director; R. CARR, Deputy
Warden; TEDESCO, Unknown: named as
John and Jane Doe Tedesco, Correctional
Officer II; DAVIS, Unknown CO II;
MORRIS, Unknown Complex Warden;
D’ARCY DAVIS; UNKNOWN PARTIES,
Named as John and Jane Doe, Morris,
Complex Warden; RODNEY CARR, Deputy
Warden; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Named as
John and Jane Doe, Tedesco,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16869
D.C. No.
2:20-cv-01378-JAT-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 27, 2024**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Before: BENNETT, BADE, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Howard Blake Tillman appeals pro se from the
district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants on his claim,
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation arising
from unsafe conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118,
1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants
on Tillman’s conditions-of-confinement claim because he failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk to
inmate health or safety that was “sufficiently serious” to establish an Eighth
Amendment violation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832–34 (1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --