N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EDWARD E. SEELY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JIM GIB B ONS; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15386 D.C . No. 3:08-c v-00125-R C JR AM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R o b e rt C live Jone s, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Ne va da sta te prisone r Edwa

rd E. Se e l y a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t de fe nda nts viola te d his Eighth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights, the Am e ric ans with Disa

bilitie s Ac t (“ ADA” ), and the R e h a

bilita tion Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C .



# FIL ED D EC 10 2013 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo both a dismi ssa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la i m , He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd sum m ary judgm e nt, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Se e ly ’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt c onditions-of-c onfine m e nt c la im be c a use Se e ly fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine d isputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the fa ilure to providehim with a wa ll-m ounte d

showe r be nc h de nie d him the “ m inim a l c iviliz e d

m e a sure of life ’ s ne c e ssitie s.” K

e e nan v . Hall , 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th C ir. 1996) (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d); se ealso Ande rson v . C o unty . of K

e r n , 45 F.3d 1310, 1314 (9th C ir. 1995) (indic ating tha t la c k of sa nita tion m ust be se ve re and prolonge d to c o n stitutean Eighth Ame ndm e nt viola t ion). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Se e ly ’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt de libe rat e indiffe re nc e c la i m be c a use Se e ly fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe n da nts kne w of a

n d disre ga

rde d a n e xc e ssive risk of be d sore s in c o nne c tion with the la c k of wa l l-m ounte d

showe r be nc he s. Se eToguc hi , 391 F.3d at 1058 (prison offic ia ls a c t with de l ibe rat e indiffe re nc e only

if the y know of a

nd disre ga

rd a n e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a lth). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Se e ly ’ s e qua l prote c tion c la im be c a

use Se e ly fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s 1 2 - 1 5 3 8 6 2to whe the r de fe nda nts inte ntiona lly

and without ra

tiona l ba sis tre ate d him diffe re ntly

from othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d. Se eN

. Pac ific a LLC

v . C ity of Pac ific a , 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th C ir. 2008) (e le m e nts of “ c l a ss of one ” e qua l prote c tion c la im). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Se e ly ’ s ADA a nd R e ha bilita tion Ac t c la im s be c a

u se Se e ly fa ile d to ra i se a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nts disc rim i nate d

a ga inst him

be c a use of his disa bility . Se e O’Guinn v . Lov e loc k C orr. C tr. , 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th C ir. 2007) (e le m e nts of c la im s unde r Title II of the ADA a nd the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Se e ly ’ s a lle gations tha t de fe n da nts viola te d his rights be c a

use the y de nie d or im

prope rly ha n dle d his inmate grie va nc e s be c a u se Se e ly ha s no right to ha

ve his grie va

nc e s proc e sse d or de c ide d in a pa rtic ula r m anne r. Se e Ramire

z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th C i r. 2003) (“ [I] nm ate s la c k a

se p a rate c onstitutiona

l e ntitle m e nt to a

spe c ific grie va

nc e proc e d ure .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d c la im s a ga inst de fe nda nts tha t a re sta te a ge nc ie s or sta

te offic ia ls a c ting in the ir offic ia l c a pa c itie s be c a

use those c la im s a

re ba rre d by the Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt. Se eFlint v . De nnison , 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th C ir. 2007) (Ele v e nth Am e ndm e nt ba rs da m a ge s c l a im s a ga inst sta

te offic ia ls 1 2 - 1 5 3 8 6 3in the ir offic ia l c a pa c ity ); Tay lor v . List , 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th C ir. 1989) (Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im m unity a pplie s to sta

te a ge n c i e s, inc luding the de pa rtm e nt of prisons). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d a s tim e -barre d Se e ly ’ s c la im a ga inst de fe nda nt C raw ford be c a

use Se e ly file d this a c t ion m ore tha n two y e ars a fte r any c la im a ga inst C raw ford a c c rue d. Se ePe re z v . Se e v e rs , 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th C ir. 1989) (pe r c uriam ) (fe de ra l c o urts a pply the forum

sta te ’ s pe rsona l injury

sta tute of lim ita tions for § 1983 c la im s , whic h is two y e ars in Ne va da ) (c iting Ne v . R e v. Stat. § 11.190(4)(c ),(e )). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Se e ly ’ s c la im s a ga inst thesupe rvisory de fe nda nts be c a use Se e ly fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts de m onstra ting the i r pe rsona l involve m e nt in a

ny c o nstitutiona

l viola tion or a c a usa l c onne c tion be twe e n

the ir c onduc t a nd a ny suc h viola tion. Se eStarr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (disc ussing supervisory l ia bility unde r § 1983). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d de fe nda

nt C l ark and Sulliva

n C onstruc tors, Inc ., a

nd Se e ly ’ s c la im s unre late d to thela c k of wa ll-m ounte d showe r be nc he s be c a

u s e Se e ly fa ile d to e xha

ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s prior to filing suit. Se eW

oodford v . N

go , 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding tha t

“ prope r e xha

ustion”is m andatory

and re q uire s a dhe re nc e to a d

m inistra t ive 1 2 - 1 5 3 8 6 4proc e d

ura l rule s); Mc

K inne y v . C are y , 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th C ir. 2002) (pe r c uriam ) (re quiring e xha

ustion of a dm inistra

tive re m e die s prior to filing suit). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Se e ly ’ s m otion for re c o nside ration be c a

use Se e ly fa ile d to e sta

blish grounds wa

rranting re c o nside ration. Se eSc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty ., Or. v . AC

a ndS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd fa c tors for re c o nside ration under Fe d. R . C iv. P. 59(e ) a nd 60(b)). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 5 3 8 6 5