Case ID: f-appx_512/html/0697-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David E. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PECK, Cpt., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-15845.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 20, 2013.
    David E. Edwards, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Megan R. O’Carroll, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner David E. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his right to adequate sanitation by prohibiting him from possessing a plastic bucket that he used to wash clothing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Edwards failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ removal of a plastic bucket that Edwards used to wash his personal, as opposed to state-issued, clothing was 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) (“[Ojnly those deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities’ are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.”) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)).

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