PRINCE EDWARDS V. MICHAEL GOWER, No. 15-35611 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PRINCE E. EDWARDS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35611 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-02030-BR v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL GOWER, Asst. Director, operations, Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC); et al., Defendants-Appellees. 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Grenning v. MillerStout, 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 15-35611

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.