PERCY EDWIN HILL, AKA Percy Hill v. HULL, First Name Unknown;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PERCY EDWIN HILL, AKA Percy Hill,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HULL, First Name Unknown; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
MOHAVE COUNTY ADULT
DETENTION FACILITY; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-16554
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08017-SPL-MTM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Former pretrial detainee Percy Edwin Hill appeals pro se from the district
* 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
OCT 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16554
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action challenging the conditions
of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Hamilton v.
Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hill’s action because Hill failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible conditions-of-confinement claim. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (deprivation alleged must be objectively sufficiently serious
such that the official’s act or omission results in the denial of the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities); Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125
(9th Cir. 2018) (stating the requirements to establish a conditions-of-confinement
claim under the Fourteenth Amendment); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860
(9th Cir. 2003) (inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific
grievance procedure).
Hill’s pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 2, 3, and 4) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --