FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE LUSTER, No. 11-17769
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00281-LRH-
VCF
v.
JAMES SCHOMIG; MARTHA SIMS, MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
George Luster, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations arising from defendants’ failure to provide adequate lighting. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Sims on Luster’s
conditions-of-confinement claim because Luster failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether he was actually denied adequate lighting in his cell.
See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996) (“To sustain an Eighth
Amendment claim, the plaintiff must prove a denial of ‘the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities,’ occurring through ‘deliberate indifference’ by prison
personnel or officers.” (citations omitted)); Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779,
783 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding Eight Amendment violation where the evidence
showed that the prison lighting “was inadequate for reading . . . and hindered
attempts to insure that basic sanitation was maintained”).
Luster makes other claims concerning his motions for appointment of
counsel, for leave to add a defendant, and for injunctive relief that are not
supported.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17769