
    Elias MURILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Edward MacDONALD, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-16873.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2013.
    Elias Murillo, pro se.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elias Murillo, a California state prisoner incarcerated in Arizona, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed action because the short-term deprivation of bathroom facilities, without more, is not sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Wilson v. Setter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (“[O]nly those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 733 (9th Cir.2000) (“[W]e have no doubt that toilets can be unavailable for some period of time without violating the Eighth Amendment. ...”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     