discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vaught IV v. Oppedisano (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g." First, the deprivation alleged must be, 6 objectively, “sufficiently serious,” Wilson [v. Seiter, supra, 501 U.S., at 298, 7 111 S.Ct., at 2324; see also Hudson v. McMillian, supra, 503 U.S., at 5, 112 S.Ct., at 998; a prison official’s act or omission must result in the denial of 8 “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” Rhodes [v. Chapman, 9 supra, 452 U.S., at 347 , 101 S.Ct., at 2399 . . . . [¶] The second requirement follows from the principle that “only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 10 pain implicates the Eighth Amendment.” Wilson, 501 U.S., at …

discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PC) Barbour v. United States The focus of the inquiry is not on the agent’s subjective intent in exercising the 9 discretion conferred by statute or regulation, but on the nature of the actions taken and on whether 10 they are susceptible to policy analysis.” United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 325 , 111 S.Ct. 11 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Martinez v. Hacker-Agnew Coleman, 501 U.S. at 728 , 111 S. Ct. 11 at 2254.

discussed Cited "see" Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Pharmadyne Corp. See generally Eli Lilly and Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661, 676 , 110 S.Ct. 2683 , 110 L.Ed.2d 605 , reh’g denied, 497 U.S. 1047 , 111 S.Ct. 11 , 111 L.Ed.2d 825 (1990); Glaxo v. Novopharm, Ltd., 110 F.3d 1562, 1568-69 (Fed.Cir.1997), aff'g, 931 F.Supp. 1280 (E.D.N.C.1996).