Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Edward E. Allen, who was confined at Lane County Adult Correctional Facility ("the jail") at all times relevant to this appeal, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, see Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Although the district court failed to explain the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Allen demonstrated "a complete understanding of [the rule]'s requirements" in the conclusion section of his opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 961-62 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc).
With respect to Allen's claim that he was denied access to the courts due to the inadequacy of materials and limited time in the law library, the inadequacy of materials for preparing filings, the price of photocopies, and other conditions which affected his ability to litigate legal claims, we conclude that he failed to demonstrate that he suffered an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim related to the conditions of his confinement or the legitimacy of his sentence or conviction. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 353-55 (1996). Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for defendants on this claim.
As a pretrial detainee, Allen's claims about unconstitutional conditions of confinement are analyzed under the Fourteenth instead of the Eighth Amendment, but we utilize Eighth Amendment standards because the rights are comparable. See Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128.
We conclude that Allen's evidence fails to establish that the food service at the jail was constitutionally inadequate. See LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir.1993). We also conclude that Allen's evidence fails to establish that officials at the jail knew and disregarded the fact that individuals with contagious diseases were being housed with the general population. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for defendants on these claims.
In support of his claim that the jail was unsanitary, Allen submitted affidavits that surfaces in the dormitory and bathroom areas were stained with vomit, human feces, hair, and blood, that cleaning supplies were inadequate, that cockroaches were prevalent, and that there was no air movement because ventilation ducts were clogged. Allen also submitted evidence that jail inmates complained about these conditions and that jail officials did not supply adequate cleaning supplies with adequate frequency to ameliorate the conditions. We conclude that these affidavits were sufficient to create a genuine issue that the conditions of confinement were constitutionally inadequate. See Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783 (9th Cir.1985). Accordingly, the district court erred by granting summary judgment on this claim. Thus, we remand this claim for further proceedings.
In support of his claim that the footwear provided by jail officials was constitutionally inadequate, Allen submitted his own deposition testimony in which he stated that he complained about how the footwear was ill-fitting and potentially dangerous, and how he later fell due to the ill-fitting footwear and seriously injured his shoulder. We conclude that this evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue as to jail official's deliberate indifference to Allen's safety. See Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128-29. Accordingly, the district court erred by granting summary judgment on this claim. Thus, we remand this claim for further proceedings.
We reject Allen's remaining claims as meritless.
Each party shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.