Kenneth Howard v. A. Hedgpeth , 475 F. App'x 212 ( 2012 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
KENNETH L. HOWARD, No. 11-15381
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00859-RTB-
PCL
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Howard, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
officials compelled him to work in unsafe conditions that resulted in injury to his
hand and violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo, Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470
(9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Warden Hedgpeth
because Howard adduced no evidence supporting his allegation that the Warden
knew of the loose metal on the freezer prior to Howard’s injury. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claim requires showing that defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk
of serious harm); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1994 (order) (9th Cir.
1998) (“Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the
defendant.”).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment to the other
defendants on the basis of qualified immunity because a reasonable prison official
could have believed that instructing Howard to push a pallet through the doorway
with loose metal was not an Eighth Amendment violation. See Osolinski v. Kane,
92 F.3d 934, 938–39 (9th Cir. 1996) (concluding that a single defective device,
without other conditions contributing to the threat to the inmate, does not
objectively give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation).
Howard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15381