Tomas Meneweather v. B. Powell

Ninth Circuit

Tomas Meneweather v. B. Powell

417 F. App'x 656

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

Docket09-17445

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 417 F. App'x 656 (Tomas Meneweather v. B. Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tomas Meneweather v. B. Powell, 417 F. App'x 656 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tomas Lopez Meneweather appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations arising from unsanitary conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 345 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir.2003), and decision regarding qualified immunity, Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516, 114 S.Ct. 1019, 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994). We reverse and remand.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Meneweather, he has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the deliberate indifference of defendants B. Powell, D. Ferry, T.G. Miller, G. Bailey, A. Meyers, J. Ippolito, R. Reyes, T. Rincon, and Nurse O’Kelley with regard to the unsanitary conditions of his cell. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.”); see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir.1995) (“[SJubjection of a prisoner to lack of sanitation that is severe or prolonged can constitute an infliction of pain within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.”).

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because, again viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Meneweather, it would have been clear to reasonable correctional officers in defendants’ positions that their failure to address the unsanitary conditions of Meneweather’s cell were unlawful. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings on Meneweather’s deliberate indifference claims against B. Powell, D. Ferry, T.G. Miller, G. Bailey, A. Meyers, J. Ippolito, R. Reyes, T. Rincon, and Nurse O’Kelley.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tomas Lopez Meneweather appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations arising from unsanitary conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 345 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir.2003), and decision regarding qualified immunity, Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516, 114 S.Ct. 1019, 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994). We reverse and remand.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Meneweather, he has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the deliberate indifference of defendants B. Powell, D. Ferry, T.G. Miller, G. Bailey, A. Meyers, J. Ippolito, R. Reyes, T. Rincon, and Nurse O’Kelley with regard to the unsanitary conditions of his cell. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.”); see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir.1995) (“[SJubjection of a prisoner to lack of sanitation that is severe or prolonged can constitute an infliction of pain within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.”).

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because, again viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Meneweather, it would have been clear to reasonable correctional officers in defendants’ positions that their failure to address the unsanitary conditions of Meneweather’s cell were unlawful. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings on Meneweather’s deliberate indifference claims against B. Powell, D. Ferry, T.G. Miller, G. Bailey, A. Meyers, J. Ippolito, R. Reyes, T. Rincon, and Nurse O’Kelley.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F. App'x 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomas-meneweather-v-b-powell-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack