N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM ES M ARK HINKLEY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R OD SHUM A TE; e t

a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-35602 D.C . No. 4:14-c v-05029-EFS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Edwa rd F. She a , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. W a shington sta

te prisone r Jam e s M ark Hinkle y a p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging Eighth Am e ndm e nt c la im s re lating to the c onditions of his c onfine m e nt. W e re v ie w de novo. Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011) (dismissa l unde r 28 

# FIL ED SEP 04 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998)

(orde r) (dism i ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii)). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm

in pa rt, va c ate in pa

rt, a nd re m and. Dism issa l of Hinkle y ’ s ina de quate be dding c la im wa s prope r a s to de fe nda n ts W arne r, Franks, Sinc la ir, a nd Knight be c a

use Hinkle y

fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to show tha t the se de fe nda

nts kne w tha

t the prison’ s single -m at polic y pre se nte d a

n e x c e ssive risk of ha

rm to Hinkle y ’ s he a lth a

nd disre ga

rde d tha t risk. Se e Farme r v . Bre n nan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“ [A] prison offic ia l c annot be found lia

ble unde r the Eighth Am e ndm e n t . . . unle ss the offic ia l knows of and disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a lth or sa fe ty [.] ” ); se e also Starr v. Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (a supe rvisor is lia

ble unde r § 1983 only if he is pe rsona lly

involve d in thec onstitutiona l de priva tion or the re is a

“ suffic ie nt c a

usa l c o nne c tion be twe e n the supe rvisor’ s wrongful c onduc t a nd the c onstitutiona

l viola t ion” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); Le e r v . Murphy , 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th C ir. 1988) (the c a usation a na ly sis unde r § 1983 is

“ individualiz e d a

nd foc us[e s] on the dutie s a nd re sponsibilitie s of e a c h individual de fe nda n t whose a c ts or om issions a re a lle ge d to ha

ve c a use d a c onstitutiona

l de priva tion” ). 1 4 - 3 5 6 0 2 2Howe v e r, dism issa l of Hinkle y ’ s ina de quate be dding c la im a s to de fe nda

nt Shum ate wa s pre m ature be c a use Hinkle y a lle ge d tha

t Shum ate fa ile d to re spond to his re que st for a

n a dditional m at. The se a lle gations, libera l ly c onstrue d, we re

“ suffic ie nt to wa

rrant orde ring [Shum ate ] to file an answe r.” W

ilhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th C ir. 2012). Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the judgm e nt a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings on this c la im only . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Hinkle y ’ s ba

throom bre ak a nd hy gie ne /sa

nita tion c la im s be c a

use Hinkle y

fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to show that the se polic ie s de prive d

him of ba sic ne c e ssitie s of life and tha t de fe nda nts kne w of a nd disre ga

rde d a n e xc e ssive risk of ha

rm to his he a l th. Se e Farme r , 511 U.S. at 837; Ande r

son v . C ounty of K e rn , 45 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (9th C ir. 1995) (subje c tion of a

prisone r to la c k of sa

nita tion tha t is se ve re or prolonge d c an c onstitute an Eighth Ame ndm e nt viola tion); s e e also Starr , 652 F.3d a t 1207. Hinkle y ’ s c onte m

pt m otion, c ross-notic e d in Appe a l Nos. 14-35602 a nd 14- 35603 a nd file d on Ja

nua ry 2, 2015, is denie d. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

1 4 - 3 5 6 0 2 3