Narrative Opinion Summary
Tovia LaFaele, a California state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which claimed unsanitary housing conditions. The appeal is reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and de novo for dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court affirms the dismissal, determining that LaFaele did not sufficiently allege a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, he failed to demonstrate that the defendant, Largent, acted with deliberate indifference to a known substantial risk to inmate health or safety, as established in Farmer v. Brennan. LaFaele's additional arguments were deemed without merit. The decision is not designated for publication and does not establish precedent except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Eighth Amendment Violation and Deliberate Indifference Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to a known substantial risk to inmate health or safety, as required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Reasoning: LaFaele did not sufficiently allege a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, he failed to demonstrate that the defendant, Largent, acted with deliberate indifference to a known substantial risk to inmate health or safety, as established in Farmer v. Brennan.
Non-precedential Nature of Unpublished Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not published and therefore does not establish legal precedent, except as permitted under the applicable rules of the circuit.
Reasoning: The decision is not designated for publication and does not establish precedent except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Review Standard for Dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915Asubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A de novo, which means the appellate court reexamines the case without deference to the lower court's decision.
Reasoning: The appeal is reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and de novo for dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.