Charles Gregory Reece v. D. K. SISTO, Warden and DON MIMIS, Plant Operation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES GREGORY REECE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. K. SISTO, Warden and DON MIMIS,
Plant Operation,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15517
D.C. No.
2:10-cv-00203-JAM-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 5, 2019**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
MAR 07 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

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 (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.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Reece v. Sisto, 18-15517
SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
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.
FILED
MAR 07 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 3 of 3 --