Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

_ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
_ FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT A
ERIC D. JOHNSON, No. 05-16463
D.C. No. CV02-00898-DGC/ECV
Plaintiff — Appellant,
V. .
JUDGMENT
MEG SAVAGE, Operations Director sued
in individual capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
` (Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this '
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered 11/ 19/07
I `‘`·- T;
ve? rz
2/;z_ Z “ ` ’
by/A/1*- 2;
( °_ ‘ Cleric ~ 3
Case 2:02—cv—00898—DGC—ECV Document 159 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 1 of 4

' NOT Pon PUBLICATION N¤V 19 2**07
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS °ATUY$% FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC D. JOHNSON, No. 05-16463
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. No. CV02-00898-DGC/ECV
v. A
MEMORANDUM*
MEG SAVAGE, Operations Director sued
in individual capacity; SAM SUBLETT,
’ warden sued in individual capacity; M.
MCKEE, Deputy Warden sued in
individual capacity; F. VALDEZ; JOHN
DOES; JANE DOES, sued in individual
capacities; P. SWANSON; S. CRUZ;
DORA B. SCHRIRO, Director,
Defendants - Appellees. . ’
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 16, 2007 _
San Francisco, California
L Before: BRUNETTI, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
‘ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not ·
A precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. _
Case 2:02—cv—00898—DGC—ECV Document 159 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 4

_ A Eric Johnson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment. We
affirm.
_ Johnson presents three claims on appeal. He first argues that the conditions
of confinement he endured during the August 2001 prison disturbances violate the V
Eighth Amendment. He has not produced any evidence that he suffered the type
of deprivation serious enough to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.
Johnson also has no evidence of a culpable state of mind of any Defendant, and he p
admitted he only sued Defendants because they were "in the chain of command."
See Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 732 (9th Cir. 2000).
Second, Johnson argues that he suffered medical mistreatment during and
after the disturbances. The minor delay in his medication and the tightness of the
plasti-cuffs had legitimate penological justifications and did not cause him serious
harm. Further, Johnson again fails to draw any connection between his treatment
and the named Defendants. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1129-30 (9th Cir.
1998).
Finally, Johnson argues that he was denied the ability to conduct adequate
discovery and that the district court improperly granted summary judgment
because he had an outstanding Rule 56(f) application. The record demonstrates (
‘ Case 2:02—cv—00898—DGC—ECV Document 159 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 3 of 4

i Johnson’s failure to take advantage of discovery opportunities in a timely and 9
diligent manner. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F .3d 918, 930 (9th Cir;2004).
AFFIRMED. 9
l é E l;{lé§SON
_C§lGI“l<,6f.C3#¤11T°l~»_ *3/
eA“>E$’ 9
1 1 gc 1 232007; j
k?y’
V
Case 2:02—cv—00898—DGC—ECV Document 159 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-00898-DGC-ECV

Document 159

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-00898-DGC-ECV

Document 159

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-00898-DGC-ECV

Document 159

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-00898-DGC-ECV

Document 159

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 4 of 4