REECE v. SISTO (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Charles Gregory Reece appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in Reece’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Reece failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was subjected to extreme cold and denied warm clothing and bedding, or whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health and safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (to challenge his conditions of confinement, a prisoner must show both that he was subjected to a sufficiently serious deprivation and that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety).

Defendants’ motion to strike Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to Reece’s Opening Brief (Docket Entry No. 16) is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

I concur in the Memorandum affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant Sisto. However, I would reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Mims for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan in his Findings and Recommendations dated September 6, 2017.