Dean v. Arpaio , 382 F. App'x 585 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 07 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEPHEN C. DEAN,                                 No. 07-16399
    Plaintiff - Appellant,              D.C. No. CV-04-01909-SRB-MHB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JOE ARPAIO, sued in his individual and
    official capacity; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:      CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Stephen C. Dean, a former pretrial detainee at the Maricopa County Jail,
    appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    action alleging overcrowding and unsanitary conditions at the jail in violation of
    *
    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).
    the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 
    380 F.3d 1149
    , 1150 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
    affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on the overcrowding
    claim because Dean failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
    there were additional factors such as violence or inadequate staffing to give rise to
    an Eighth Amendment violation. See Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 
    869 F.2d 461
    , 471 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Only when overcrowding is combined with other factors
    such as violence or inadequate staffing does overcrowding rise to an eighth
    amendment violation.”); Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 
    591 F.3d 1232
    ,
    1241-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (because pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights
    are comparable to prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights, the same standards apply).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on the unsanitary
    conditions claim because Dean failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
    whether defendants knew of and disregarded an objectively intolerable risk of
    harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 846 (1994) (“[T]o survive summary
    judgment, [plaintiff] must come forward with evidence from which it can be
    inferred that the defendant-officials were at the time suit was filed, and are at the
    07-16399
    2
    time of summary judgment, knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an
    objectively intolerable risk of harm.”).
    We do not consider issues that were not raised in Dean’s opening brief. See
    Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 
    520 F.3d 1024
    , 1033 (9th Cir. 2008)
    (arguments not raised by a party in the opening brief are deemed abandoned).
    Dean’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    All pending motions are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    07-16399
    3