David E. Edwards v. PECK, Cpt.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID E. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PECK, Cpt.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-15845
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00298-LKK-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David E. Edwards appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his right to adequate sanitation by prohibiting him from possessing a
FILED
MAR 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

plastic bucket that he used to wash clothing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Edwards
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ removal
of a plastic bucket that Edwards used to wash his personal, as opposed to state-
issued, clothing was sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment
violation. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (“[O]nly those
deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities’ are
sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” (quoting
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 447, 347 (1981)).
AFFIRMED.
12-15845 2

-- 2 of 2 --