141 F. 3d 1177 - Layton v. Ek McDaniel W
141 F3d 1177 Layton v. Ek McDaniel W
141 F.3d 1177
John Lee LAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
E.K. MCDANIEL, Warden; Dwight W. Nevin; William Donat,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 97-16516.
D.C. No. CV-95-00772-ECR.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
.
Submitted Mar. 10, 1998**.
Decided Mar. 17, 1998.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Before FLETCHER, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM*
John Lee Layton, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action alleging that the conditions of his confinement violate the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
Layton failed to make an adequate showing that defendants acted with deliberate indifference with respect to his claim that the prison buildings where he was housed were shaking continuously. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (to be found liable for denying humane conditions of confinement, prison official must know that inmates face substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (requiring party opposing summary judgment to make adequate showing to establish existence of element essential to party's case). Also, Layton failed to submit any evidence to support his claims that other conditions of his confinement violated his Eighth Amendment rights. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S at 322. Accordingly, summary judgment for defendants was properly granted.
AFFIRMED.