FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACK CANTRELL, No. 09-16187
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00846-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jack Cantrell, a former Arizona pretrial detainee, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
*
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).
PDM/Research
Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny summary judgment,
Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th Cir. 2005), and its dismissal
for failure to exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and
review for clear error its factual determinations, id. We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant and
denied Cantrell’s motion for summary judgment, on Cantrell’s deliberate
indifference claim, because Cantrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether defendant knew that Cantrell was housed with an inmate who had an
alleged staph infection. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A]
prison official cannot be found liable [for deliberate indifference] unless the
official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”);
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Liability under section 1983
arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.”).
The district court properly dismissed Cantrell’s claims alleging freezing
conditions of confinement and an overcrowded and cockroach-infested holding cell
because Cantrell did not complete the administrative appeals process in accordance
with the administrative procedural rules. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-
84, 90-91 (holding that “proper exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) cannot be satisfied
PDM/Research 2 09-16187
“by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance
or appeal,” and requiring inmates to complete “all steps that the agency holds
out”).
Cantrell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
PDM/Research 3 09-16187