Prince E. Edwards v. MICHAEL GOWER, Asst. Director, operations, Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC);

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRINCE E. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL GOWER, Asst. Director,
operations, Oregon Department of
Corrections (ODOC); et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35611
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-02030-BR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Former Oregon state prisoner Prince E. Edwards appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations arising from his conditions of confinement. We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-35611
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Grenning v. Miller-
Stout, 739 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Edwards
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the frequency with
which the prison call center’s portable toilets were cleaned denied him the
“minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,
744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Anderson v.
County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (9th Cir. 1995) (lack of sanitation must be
severe and prolonged to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation).
We reject as without merit Edwards’ contention that the district court
improperly relied on disputed material facts in its ruling.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --